Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BATH SIDE BAY DEVELOPMENT BILL

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

CONGREGATIONAL CHAPEL AND TRUST PROPERTY DEPTFORD BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

UNITED REFORMED CHURCH BILL [Lords]

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Tuesday next.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL [MONEY] BILL (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Tuesday next.

THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL (By Order)

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Tuesday next.

ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND LIMITED WIDOWS' AND ORPHANS' FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

As amended, considered: to be read the Third time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Harrow

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of the registered unemployed in the most recent figures available to his Department for the London Borough of Harrow were in the age groups under 25 years of age and over 55 years of age, respectively.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): At 10th January, the latest date for which information is available, 22·5 per cent. of those registered as wholly unemployed in the area covered by the Harrow Employment Exchange were under 25 years of age and 36 per cent. were aged 55 years and over.

Mr. Dykes: While thanking my hon. Friend for those figures, may I ask, in view of the welcome trend of falling unemployment throughout the country, including the South-East, whether there will be additional measures by the Department's local offices to find employment for people in these two categories in view of the relative difficulties which they experience?

Mr. Smith: Those under 25 or wholly unemployed were appreciably smaller in number in Harrow in January than in the South-East region and the country as a whole. On the other hand, Harrow's share of unemployment among those aged 55 and over was substantially greater than the regional and national share, largely because of premature retirements in two companies in the area early in 1971. I


do not think the situation is too serious in Harrow, but of course our local offices give special attention to these two categories.

Wage Claims

Mr. Loveridge: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will institute discussions with a view to ensuring that all major wage claims are brought into effect on the same date each year, thus reducing the incentive for successive claims to leap frog each other and causing additional inflation.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): This is primarily a matter for unions and employers. If the TUC and CBI were to raise this matter in the talks we are having with them we would certainly consider it.

Mr. Loveridge: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for saying that this could be considered by the Government. If a fixed date could be arranged—of course, on a voluntary basis—it could well make life easier for the trade unions, employers and Government alike, especially if the Office of Manpower Economics were to provide ample figures for them in advance of the fixed date.

Mr. Macmillan: I am not absolutely convinced that this would necessarily be a change for the better, but if it is raised by the unions and the CBI, the Government would not wish to stand in the way of its consideration.

Mr. Atkinson: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that what he said is in direct contradiction to the advice which he has given to the Railways Board? In the railway industry, he is trying to extend the period beyond 1st May. He has asked the Board not to concede the agreement in the period of less than 15 days after the normal date, which has been chosen over the years, for the payment of the increase to the railwaymen—in other words, 1st May. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is now advising the railway industry to go beyond the normal 12-month period.

Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Gentleman has the facts wrong. I have not advised the Board to do anything. There is no change in the negotiating year in the railways in the proposals put forward by

the Board, which were a modification of the original Jarratt award designed to suit the unions.

Mr. Skinner: While realising that it is a somewhat difficult problem to get the trade unions to put in a claim on the same day, could not the right hon. Gentleman at least make a start by suggesting that the Railways Board should pay the increase on the same day as London Transport? This would at least be a beginning.

Mr. Macmillan: It would also be helpful if the unions would accept the same percentage of annual increase as in respect of London Transport—in other words, under 12½ per cent.

Unemployed Persons (Near Retirement)

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the latest analysed monthly figures of unemployed persons are persons within five years of the retirement age; and how their average period of unemployment compares with other age groups.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Robert Chichester-Clark): At 10th January, the latest date for which information is available, 14·6 per cent. of all males and females registered as wholly unemployed in Great Britain were within five years of retirement ages. Their median duration of unemployment was between 26 and 39 weeks, compared with 9–13 weeks for all registered unemployed.

Mr. Chapman: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Would not he agree that, however many people are unemployed from one month to the next, the nature and causes of unemployment are for ever changing and that this is a particular problem for older people? Is he satisfied that the Department is doing enough research to find out whether there are any short-term solutions which can be found to particular problems in these age categories?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I am never satisfied that enough research is done on any of these subjects. At the same time, it is a fact that there is no disqualification on age grounds for people in this category which would prevent them from


going to Government training centres or taking advantage of any other Government training facilities, including the IRU.

Hotel and Catering Industry

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to ensure that vacancies in the hotel and catering industry are filled; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Following consultations with the British Hotels and Restaurants Association improvements are being made in the arrangements for bringing vacancies to the notice of those who are unemployed and suitable for such work. When these improvements are completed, over 20 employment offices will have specialist sections dealing with skilled hotel and catering occupations.

Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. Friend warmly for that most encouraging answer. Nevertheless, is he aware that on 9th May his Department told me in a Written Answer that there were over 16,000 job vacancies in the industry, while at about the same time the British Hotel and Restaurants Association stated that there were over 98,000 vacancies? Does this not show the great need in this industry for recruitment to overcome the job snob attitudes of people towards work in it? Will he continue as he has started today by doing all he can to stress that the industry can offer secure employment to a very large number of people?

Mr. Smith: I am sure my hon. Friend is right. We are doing all we can to encourage both the trade and others to view this in a rather different light and to get more people to enter the industry. But we must be honest and admit that many people do not find this work particularly attractive. A leading hotelier told me so last week. On the other hand, as my hon. Friend says, there are great opportunities and there is very good security of employment in the industry.

Mr. Dalyell: When they go around, could these same officers of the Department ask about the implementation of the fire regulations? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the South of

Scotland fire services are acutely worried about the number of hotels which have failed to register? This is a problem.

Mr. Smith: That is rather wide of the original Question and is not my responsibility. But I share the concern of the hon. Gentleman and I will draw what he said to the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department.

North Sea Gas and Oil

Mr. Skeet: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what estimates his Department has made of the number of jobs in Great Britain likely to be created as a result of the exploitation of North Sea gas and oil within the next five years.

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs he estimates will arise in Great Britain over the next five years from the exploitation of North Sea gas and oil.

Mr. Dudley Smith: While it is not possible to make a precise estimate, activities connected with the exploitation of North Sea gas and oil are likely to provide a substantial and increasing number of jobs.

Mr. Skeet: My hon. Friend has not given a particularly illuminating answer. The number of rigs to be employed in the North Sea area in 1973 or 1974 is likely to be three times the number there now. Would it not be a good idea to have a complete computer analysis of the repercussions of this new industry upon tertiary and secondary industries in this area? Would not my hon. Friend agree that by proper planning methods many more jobs could become available?

Mr. Smith: I should like to study what my hon. Friend said. Undoubtedly, if the various projects of which my Department is aware materialise, they are likely to provide over 4,000 additional jobs and to produce great opportunities. But it would be wrong to over-sell the developments taking place. On the other hand, these can be of real benefit, particularly to an area such as Scotland.

Mr. Dempsey: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the successful working of gas and oil reserves could bring about a large-scale advantage to this country's economy? However difficult it may be,


can he give any idea of how many jobs this will bring to Scotland? It would help us to halt the depopulation there.

Mr. Smith: I am glad the hon. Gentleman welcomes this development. It is very difficult to be precise. I quoted the figure of over 4,000 jobs and I hope there will be many more. It could well be so, but much more detailed study is required over a period before we can approach this matter with any precision.

Dame Irene Ward: While thanking my hon. Friend for his reply and recognising all the efforts which are being made, may I ask him to bear in mind that we have very high levels of unemployment and that everything seems a bit too "scatty"? The situation needs to be stated with much more precision so that we can know in which directions to bring pressure to bear on Ministers to get on with the jobs with which we want them to get on. I am very annoyed with all this "scattiness".

Mr. Smith: It is always very difficult to please my hon. Friend because she is so assiduous in promoting the cause of the North East, but I assure her that there is a great deal of precision in my Department's approach to employment. Indeed, the improvements which have already taken place are good evidence of the precision being applied.

Dr. Miller: When will the Government stop calling this "North Sea gas and oil", because these deposits go right round the North Sea to the west coast of Scotland, stretching into the Irish Sea? When also will the Government come to a conclusion about the benefit which these developments should have on Scotland and stop anybody—and I do not care from where they come—from stealing this valuable asset from the Scottish people?

Mr. Smith: I do not think that I should start crossing swords with the hon. Gentleman about the merits of Scotland. I did not coin the phrase "North Sea oil and gas". It is in general use. Indeed, he should address his remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome this development because, not only for Scotland but for the country as a whole, there are very real benefits from it.

Industrial Relations Act (Training of Union Officials)

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what assistance his Department is able to give to trades unions wishing to train union officials and members in the operation of the Industrial Relations Act.

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if, in the discharge of his responsibilities for promoting good industrial relations, he will arrange for his Department to make available training facilities for union officials.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: A course for shop stewards and union officials is available under my Department's "training within industry" scheme.

Mr. Rost: Is there not an urgent need for more courses for trade unionists on the workings of the Industrial Relations Act? Would this not help to improve industrial relations and to make it clear that the Act works to the advantage of trade union members and to the public interest as a whole? Would it not also be useful if some hon. Members opposite could attend some of these courses and therefore give less misleading advice to their trade union colleagues?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: As my hon. Friend says, there are a number of courses which hon. Members opposite could most usefully attend. A number of courses of the type which my hon. Friend has in mind are available, and they are worked out with the full knowledge and approval of the unions concerned. Union approval is always secured before a course is presented. A revised course is being prepared at present in consultation with the Commission on Industrial Relations, the major unions concerned and the industrial training boards. The initial courses for shop stewards were well received but the unions are increasingly making their own arrangements.

Mr. Ashton: Is it not a fact that the architect of the Act was the Solicitor-General, who used all his ingenuity to frame a loaded question which was, nevertheless, rejected by a majority of six to one in the ballot during the rail dispute, and is it not clear, therefore, that the union leaders know their men


and the Act better than the Government do?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The architect was not the Solicitor-General but the court, but in any case it is true to say that these facilities for trade unions have been available for about 10 years and that quite a number of shop stewards and union officials have taken advantage of them. It seems to me a great pity that many more did not do so. I suppose that one could say that that shows a lack of responsibility by some of those concerned in not having taken advantage of the opportunities which were offered.

Mr. Jessel: Will my hon. Friend see what can be done particularly to encourage shop stewards to take the courses to which he has referred, and can he give any indication how many shop stewards have already taken such courses?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Of course we shall give every possible support to this. In the last 10 years 700 shop stewards have taken the union job relations courses and nearly 50 union officials have been trained to present the course.

Mr. Heffer: Have the hon. Gentleman or his Department approached the TUC to ask whether it might perhaps organise some courses on industrial relations which Ministers and some hon. Gentlemen on the back benches opposite could attend?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I have no doubt that there would be great advantage in cross-fertilisation, and I am sure that note will be taken of what the hon. Member said.

Rail Dispute

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the railway workers' dispute.

Mr. Adam Butler: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the position in the current rail dispute; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Representatives of the British Railways Board and the three railway unions met this morning and agreed to adjourn to a further meeting at 2.30 p.m. tomorrow.

Sir G. Nabarro: May we expect a statement tomorrow from the Minister after the conclusion of those deliberations? Is he not aware that there is very great anxiety in all parts of the country, not only within the ambit of the railway dispute itself but also over the whole general range of industry, whether we are not being deadlocked and bogged down by the tendentious conditions of the Industrial Relations Act?

Mr. Macmillan: I think there is danger—and the whole House will see it—of being bogged down by the refusal of the unions to adopt any form of compromise, and it has been manifest through the whole process of these negotiations. The purpose of this meeting is clearly to try to reach some form of settlement. I do not think it would be wise for me to comment—indeed, I cannot: I do not know what transpired—till after we know what takes place at the meeting tomorrow, when we shall know what the situation is.

Mr. Prentice: Does not the Secretary of State recall that when the Government applied for the rail ballot order the Solicitor-General told the court that he had reason to doubt support among railwaymen for continued industrial action? Now that the decisive result of the ballot has made nonsense of that assertion has not the Secretary of State a duty to the House and to the country to explain what were the reasons why the Government took that line?

Mr. Macmillan: I had very good and sound reasons for believing that at varying stages of the negotiations a number of railway men and a number of people would have been happy to see a settlement at a reasonable and moderate figure, and I have reason to believe that the whole country regarded the award by Mr. Jarratt as a reasonable and moderate figure. I am only sorry that the railway union leaders did not see this. They have now received the support of a great mass of their membership. I would not for one moment doubt their right to take industrial action, only the wisdom of so doing.

Mr. Prentice: The Secretary of State must do better than that. He says he has good reasons for believing that the railway men did not support the union leaders. It has now been proved that


he had no such reasons. Although the Act is phrased in such a way that he does not have to produce evidence to the court for that assertion, does he not realise that he still has a responsibility to this House on a matter as important as this to explain what those reasons were? We are entitled to know, and the country is entitled to know, what they were.

Mr. Macmillan: I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will be able to arrange, if they so wish, a debate through the usual channels. [Hon. Members: "Answer."] I will not at this stage be drawn any further into the merits of the dispute which has not yet been settled and which the parties are still discussing.

Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You must distinctly have heard me ask whether we may expect a statement tomorrow at the end of the deliberations.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows quite well that that is not a point of order.

Scotland (Lost Jobs)

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest estimate of the number of jobs which have been lost in Scotland since 1st January, 1971.

Mr. Dudley Smith: The precise information is not available, but between December, 1970, and September, 1971, the latest date for which a provisional estimate is available, the number of employees in employment in Scotland decreased by 26,000.

Mr. Strang: The Minister must be aware that that figure represents a staggering state of injustice and demoralisation, when there are a large number of additional redundancies which have been recently announced in Scotland. Bearing in mind that many of these are in nationalised industries, does he not think that it would be sensible to impose a freeze on all redundancies in nationalised industries till the problem has been alleviated?

Mr. Smith: I am as much concerned as is the hon. Member about the high level of unemployment in Scotland, and

we have always said that it is unacceptable, but I think that it is encouraging that there was a fall of some 16,000 in the May unemployed figure and that that is an indication that our measures are in fact working.

Mr. Sillars: Will the Minister confirm that the Government's economic policy for Scotland has as much chance as a snowball in hell of getting unemployment below 100,000 this year or next year? Will he come clean and tell the country the truth that this is in fact the case?

Mr. Smith: No, I do not accept the hon. Member's pessimism. There is too much talking down in that way on these occasions. We must welcome progress where it is shown. We have certainly made an improvement in Scotland, and there is the further indication of an increase of over one thousand unfilled vacancies in Scotland. This is the right trend, and it shows that we are on the right lines.

Steel Industry

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what notification he has received of likely redundancies in the steel industry in 1972; in what areas; and what numbers are involved.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: As the reply comprises a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Eadie: The right hon. Gentleman has me at some disadvantage since I have to wait for that table of figures, but I wonder whether he can assure the House that there is good liaison between his Department and the Department of Trade and Industry, because he may be aware that, as a consequence of the steel target pronounced by his right hon. Friend, many thousands of jobs in the steel industry will be placed in jeopardy.

Mr. Macmillan: We are in communication with both the Department of Trade and Industry and the British Steel Corporation with regard to redundancies. The British Steel Corporation's social policy unit co-operates with my Department both at national and at local levels to give all possible assistance to British steel employees facing redundancies.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the improvements which we have seen in the employment situation in Scotland, there is real concern that there has been in nationalised industries, particularly steel, a movement of administrative jobs away from Scotland, despite the provisions of the nationalisation Act that they should be spread around the country? Would he consider meeting the chiefs of the nationalised industries with a view to ensuring that Scotland gets a fair share of administrative jobs?

Mr. Macmillan: I am not quite sure whether that particular technique is necessary, but it is important to see that administrative jobs are decentralised, and, as far as possible, decentralised fairly, and I am very willing to accept the claims of Scotland in this respect.

Mr. Ashley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that closing of the Shotton steel works would mean that Stoke-on-Trent and North Staffordshire would be turned into a distressed area, and will he do all in his power to ensure that those works are kept open?

Mr. Macmillan: The question of which steel works are kept open is a matter not for me but for the British Steel Corporation and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I can, however, assure the hon. Gentleman that where there are redundancies my Department does its best to see that those concerned are found employment as soon as possible.

Following is the information:

Likely Redundancies in the Steel Industry during 1972


Region
Numbers involved


Wales
1,745


Northern
1,416


Midlands
1,048


Yorkshire and Humberside
836


Scotland
700


North Western
159


Eastern and Southern
40


London and South Eastern
5


Total
5,949

NOTE. The figures quoted are based on notifications received by the DE from firms up to and including 22nd May, 1972.

Commission on Industrial Relations (Ballot)

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Employment who will have access to the names and addresses of workers collected by his Department for the Commission on Industrial Relations for ballot purposes.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I understand from the Commission on Industrial Relations that arrangements are being made to destroy its copies of the lists of names and addresses of railway workers collected for purposes of the recent ballot. The unions and Railways Board have been informed of these arrangements. Lists held by my Departmental officers have already been destroyed.

Mr. Huckfield: Is it not a fact that these names and addresses were collected by the Minister's Department without a court order from the National Industrial Relations Court, without consulting the unions and without all of the Board of the CIR even knowing about it? Is it not also a fact that this was done to coerce the railway unions? As not all the staff involved in the handling of the recent ballot are covered by the Official Secrets Act, how can the Minister give the guarantee which he has given?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I already answered the hon. Gentleman on this matter on 9th May. As far as the CIR was concerned and the compilation of this list, I would not disagree with its view that it was sensible contingency planning. The compilation of the list of employees is a matter for the management of British Railways. Access during the ballot was confined to members of the CIR staff directly concerned with the ballot arangements, trained staff working under their supervision, and observers from the Railways Board and the unions checking entitlement to vote. Only the CIR staff I have mentioned and 16 Departmental staff engaged in counting votes saw the papers.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the carrying out of this ballot was farcical? Does he know that in my constituency we have a Swinton and also a Wath, that there are plenty of Swintons and Waths throughout the


country but that no other identifying name or town was attached to the letters, not even the word "Yorkshire?" Is he aware that many ballot papers went astray and that many of my constituents were unable to vote, which made a farce of the whole thing?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: There are bound to be areas of this kind. I have been given information about the case in Swinton.

Industrial Relations Act (Ballots)

Mr. John D. Grant: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will seek to amend the Industrial Relations Act to eliminate the requirement for compulsory ballots to be held.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: No, Sir.

Mr. Grant: Does the Minister accept that the result of the ballot was not only a resounding vote of confidence by the railway men in their union leadership but also a demonstration of their utter contempt for his bumbling brand of bravado which has bedevilled this dispute throughout? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think, in view of that and in view of the waste of time and public money that this ballot involved, that the best contribution he could make to industrial peace would be to shut himself off in a siding somewhere?

Mr. Macmillan: The ballot fulfilled its purpose in showing clearly that industrial action in this case was not being taken except with the agreement of the majority of the workpeople concerned, who were willing to take industrial action, despite the inconvenience to the country and damage to the economy, to obtain a wage settlement on which they had insisted from the beginning of the negotiations, rather than to accept the arbitrated award.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is it not the task of this House to make it clear, arising from the ballot, precisely what the position means? Is it not a fact that it means in this case that there is proof of the bona fides of the leaders of the unions to talk for their members, which is helpful and good? Is it not also a fact, however, that that in no way alters the basic situation, which is that a settlement must be based on fairness and on a sum which the railways can pay and which is fair to the

general public? Is not that the real basis behind the ballot?

Mr. Macmillan: I would not disagree at all with my hon. Friend about that. Perhaps the House would like to reflect on how happy it would be if we could have polls of an equally high percentage in other elections, in local government for one and in respect of union leadership for another.

Mr. Bagier: Whatever the right hon. Gentleman says about the railway men having voted for further industrial action, may I ask him whether he is unaware that the real issue centres on the question which was asked in the ballot, a question which was compiled by himself with the collusion of the National Industrial Relations Court—with the result that the only answer that the railway-men could give was the one that in fact they gave? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman simply to agree that the vote of the railway men was one of overwhelming confidence in their leadership?

Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Gentleman must not get his facts wrong. My Department and I suggested, as we do under the Act, a form of words for the question, but the actual form of words was changed and the question was made by the Court. It asked the people concerned whether, in the light of the most recent offer, they wished to take industrial action. They gave the clear answer, "Yes, we do".

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. Is it not unparliamentary for it to be suggested in this House that a court of law has acted in collusion, to the detriment of the nation?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should be careful in the terms they use when referring to a court of law.

Leicester

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest available figures for unemployment in the Leicester area and by what percentage these exceed the figures for June, 1970.

Mr. Dudley Smith: On 8th May, 5,308 people were registered as unemployed in the area covered by the


Leicester Employment Exchange. This was 68·5 per cent. more than in June, 1970.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister unaware that even if there has been a reduction—if there has, it is long overdue—in the level of unemployment in this area, the figure which he has given is shocking? Does he recognise that this level of unemployment is causing especial concern in an area which, until now, has enjoyed a low level of unemployment?

Mr. Smith: The position is not satisfactory. On the other hand, the current rate of 2·6 per cent. is well below the 3·1per cent. for the East Midlands and 3·8 per cent. for the country as a whole. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that there is a feeling of cautious optimism among employers in the area that the economy is now on the upturn and that Leicester will benefit from this.

Mr. Redmond: While the whole country is thoroughly dissatisfied with te levels of unemployment in certain areas, may I ask my hon. Friend to see whether we can have more realistic monthly figures showing where the beginnings of a shortage of labour are appearing, thus enabling the unemployed to be given guidance on where they may obtain employment or otherwise be retrained for the sort of vacancies that are likely to exist?

Mr. Smith: These matters are always under review and, with our new proposals to make the various services more efficient, we hope that the figures of unemployment will be even more realistic than they are at present. The important thing is that we are now beginning to make progress. I was chided a couple of months ago when I said that in terms of unemployment we were turning the corner. I still believe that we are turning the corner on unemployment.

Mr. Baxter: In view of the dissatisfaction which prevails throughout the country about the high levels of unemployment and the fact that industrial relations are at the very lowest ebb, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider recommending the Prime Minister to appoint a joint committee of this House to find ways and means of abating the problem of unemployment and overcoming the difficult industrial relations prob-

lems that exist? Is he aware that the future of this nation could be in jeopardy if something drastic is not done before long?

Mr. Smith: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's pessimism. One does not necessarily solve problems by appointing committees. In any event, that suggestion is rather wide of the original Question, which was about Leicester. The important point to remember is that in Leicester and elsewhere things are improving.

Disabled Persons

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the services provided by his Department to help find work for the disabled: and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I am satisfied that my Department provides effective services for helping disabled people find work. But, as I told the hon. Member on 17th May, these services have recently been reviewed internally and I shall soon be consulting the National Advisory Council on the Employment of the Disabled and other bodies concerned on whether any changes are necessary.

Mr. Ashley: How can the Minister be satisfied with a national scandal? Does he realise that the unemployment rate for registered disabled people is now 15 per cent. and that no less than 58 per cent. of all British employers are failing to fulfil their quota of 3 per cent. disabled employees? Does the Minister know that no fewer than 14,000 of these employers are breaking the law if they are failing to fulfil their quota and to taking on new workers? Will he prosecute these employers with the same vigour as he prosecutes trade unions when they break the law? Will he not talk about persuasion, since for the last 10 years successive Governments have talked about persuasion and employers are taking no notice of it?

Mr. Smith: This is a difficult matter. Successive Administrations have taken the view that widespread prosecution of employers in what, apart from isolated cases, are technical infringements may well jeopardise the important good will of the majority of employers in trying to help the disabled. It is a matter that


we have under review. It was spotlighted by an internal inquiry, and my right hon. Friend and I are giving urgent attention to it at present.

Mr. Marten: As the percentage of registered disabled unemployed seems to be rising, what have the Government done in the last year, over and above what they were doing in the previous year, to improve the situation?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right, but the percentage has risen in proportion to the general increase in unemployment. There is always a three-month lag in the disablement figures and I hope that the next figures will show a far more favourable position. We have mounted a number of initiatives, which we have talked about before in the House. One which is important is a reinvigoration by our officers of the inspection of registers to encourage more firms to take on disabled people. This is having some impact. I hope that as time passes it will have an even greater impact.

Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. Gentleman talks about jeopardising the good will of employers. Does not he realise that a statutory obligation has been imposed on employers by Parliament, an obligation which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) has pointed out, is being widely ignored? The quota system has become a farce. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that rather than wait for a review—the review to which he referred—he has the possibility of immediate action which would meet with the full support of the House? It would be warmly welcomed if he would instruct his disablement resettlement officers either to insist on employers implementing their statutory obligations under the Act or to prosecute offending employers.

Mr. Smith: Again this matter is not as simple as it sounds. In effect, undertaking prosecutions may not provide extra jobs for the disabled. That is what we are trying to achieve. Even if all those who are registered as disabled persons and are unemployed at present were placed in employment, there would still be insufficient for all firms to satisfy their quota obligations. I do not think that there is a widespread ignoring of

those provisions. There is a great deal of good will but, as we know, so often many firms have not the right sort of employment for disabled persons.

School Leavers (Wolverhampton)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what action he is taking to assist young school leavers in Wolverhampton in obtaining jobs and to provide them with training for employment when they leave school in July.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: About 2,000 young people will be leaving school next July in Wolverhampton and careers officers are doing all they can to help them find jobs. It is as yet too early to say what special action, if any, to provide additional training opportunities will be necessary.

Mrs. Short: Is the hon. Gentleman, despite his complacency, aware that in addition to the 2,000 school leavers in July, we have 273 school leavers who are still looking for jobs, and 73 of them left school last year and have never had a job? Is it not time that the hon. Gentleman put this complacency on one side and did something to help young people in the West Midlands who are looking for jobs and who look in vain to the Government for help?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: It is particularly encouraging that unemployment among young people other than school leavers has fallen since April and, indeed, the position is very much better. The main problem is not with school leavers but with the placing of the less-qualified 16-to-17-year-olds who have had one or more jobs and who are unemployed. This problem is being studied by a working party of the National Youth Employment Council. There has already today been a suggestion of too much talking down. I hope that the hon. Lady will not disparage too much the improvement which has been made among school leavers, because unemployment among school leavers in her area fell by nearly 60 per cent. between April and May.

Oldham

Mr. Meacher: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current unemployment rate in the Oldham area.

Mr. Dudley Smith: At 8th May the rate of unemployment in the Oldham and Chadderton, Failsworth and Saddleworth travel-to-work area was 4·7 per cent.

Mr. Meacher: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that job losses in the North-West over the last year have averaged about 1,250 a week and have been at a higher level than that of any other part of the United Kingdom? Is he also aware that public investment has been running at a very much lower level than is justified by the unemployment figures and that there is a desperate need to decentralise office employment in particular to the North-West? What is the hon. Gentleman doing to secure this objective?

Mr. Smith: As the hon. Gentleman knows, his last point is not a matter for me, but I will certainly call the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the point. The numbers of wholly unemployed in that travel-to-work area have fallen over the past months and, indeed, Oldham is included, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in the recent major expansion of the intermediate areas. The position is far brighter for Oldham than perhaps the hon. Gentleman makes out.

Mr. James Lamond: Is the Minister aware that once again a very serious position faces the textile industry because of the Government's action regarding entry to the EEC? Many employers who welcomed this move have changed their minds since they have found that 30,000 jobs in the textile industry are in jeopardy in the North-West because cotton yarn is regarded as a raw material? Will the Minister have discussions with his right hon. Friend about this matter and try to give some protection to the textile industry and to the jobs in the Oldham area?

Mr. Smith: I will certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to what the hon. Gentleman said. I do not accept his premise about entry to the EEC. I believe that for the country as a whole this will do enormous good.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOMELESS PERSONS

Mr. Barnes: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Department of

Health and Social Security and the Department of the Environment on policy towards single homeless people; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Yes, Sir. These Departments consult as necessary on all problems relating to homeless single people, and work closely together to align housing and social services policies for this area of need. An example of such co-ordination is the working party on homelessness which will be reporting shortly, among other matters, on the problems of homeless single people in London.

Mr. Barnes: But is not the division of responsibility for housing and responsibility for welfare between the two Departments unsatisfactory in view of the increasingly complicated causes of homelessness among single people in London? Would it not be better if the responsibility were concentrated with the Department of Health and Social Security and if that Department made finance available to the Greater London Council in order to build to meet this need?

The Prime Minister: It would be difficult to put questions of housing under the Department of Health and Social Security, but if there are any difficulties in co-ordination between the two Departments, the working party on homelessness, which I mentioned in my original answer and which will be reporting shortly, will reveal those difficulties. I do not know of any difficulties, from practical experience, but if the hon. Gentleman has cases which he wants to bring to my attention we will consider them with the report.

Mr. Redmond: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the Housing Finance Bill becomes law it will encourage local authorities to provide more council houses for those in need?

The Prime Minister: That is so, and the Bill also makes provision for local authorities to help hostels of the kind which are required for those people of whom the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) was thinking.

Mr. John Fraser: As someone who will be a single homeless person himself after the next General Election, will the Prime Minister authorise the Department of the


Environment to confirm compulsory purchase orders and to provide the necessary money to local authorities so that they can take into municipal ownership the large blocks of rented accommodation now being disposed of by property companies, which accommodation, if not municipalised, will be lost for ever as rented accommodation for single and other people?

The Prime Minister: Local authorities already have powers of compulsory purchase. The particular difficulties which have arisen in London, in the situation which I think some hon. Gentlemen have in mind, are not of the kind of which the hon. Gentleman has spoken. The particular problem has arisen in London because a local authority has taken a particular hostel for development purposes.

Oral Answers to Questions — SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND

Mr. Ewing: asked the Prime Minister if he will replace the Secretary of State for Scotland.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Unless and until I make a statement to the contrary, I have no plans for further ministerial changes.

Mr. Ewing: Is the Prime Minister aware that the people of Scotland will hold the Secretary of State responsible for the Government's failure to develop Hunterston and to take positive steps on the Oceanspan proposals? Is the Prime Minister further aware that the people of Scotland despair of the future under the present Secretary of State?

The Prime Minister: I do not believe that that is the view of the people of Scotland, because they know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the first planning permission for Hunterston, that he has worked to achieve the survey which is being carried on together by the Hunterston Development company and by the Clyde Port Authority, and that he has done everything possible to bring about the full development of Hunterston.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of Scotland are well aware that many of their present

problems are the direct result of the action of the previous Secretary of State, who left Scotland with high and rising unemployment, and with emigration from Scotland at an all-time high in Scotland's history? We now have a situation in which action is being taken and the problem is being solved at last.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has rightly summarised the career of the former Secretary of State.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN UNITY (AWARD)

Mr. Rost: asked the Prime Minister whether he will introduce on behalf of Her Majesty's Government the annual award of an international prize for services to European unity.

The Prime Minister: I think that matters of this kind are best left to the initiative of private organisations.

Mr. Rost: Would not a British award for services to European unity mark a suitable commemoration for British entry to the European Economic Community? Would it not also improve the chances of the Leader of the Opposition winning such a prize, as he has so far been overlooked by prize-givers? Does not the right hon. Gentleman deserve a prize for his efforts to get Britain into the EEC in 1967 on less favourable terms than we are getting now? Has not the right hon. Gentleman established his right—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough.

The Prime Minister: Powerful though no doubt all those considerations are, I would still prefer it to be done, if it has to be done, by private enterprise.

Mr. Michael Foot: If the Prime Minister were looking for a suitable object for this prize, what about a lovely joint of good old English roast beef?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had ever been prepared to pay attention to agricultural matters when he sat on the benches below the Gangway, and if he had encouraged his Government to expand British agriculture, he might well be able to get a cheaper joint today.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE UNIONS (MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Strang: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech made by the Secretary of State for Employment in London on 13th May concerning trade unions represents Government policy.

Mr. John D. Grant: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech by the Secretary of State for Employment to Conservative trade unionists in London on 13th May on industrial relations represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech delivered by the Secretary of State for Employment to a Conference of Conservative trade unionists in London on 13th May, 1972, on the subject of trade unions represents the policy of the Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, and particularly when he referred to the overriding need for a common purpose to defeat inflation, with all sectional interests subordinated to the wider interests of more stable prices, increasing real earnings and faster and sustained growth.

Mr. Strang: Is the Prime Minister aware that that policy has already done immense damage to industrial relations? In particular, does he accept that the Government's use of the National Industrial Relations Court has had the effect of severely prolonging and exacerbating the railway dispute?

The Prime Minister: No, I certainly do not accept that. It has produced a cooling-off period which has saved the British public from a great deal of inconvenience and has saved the British economy from damage.

Mr. Grant: Does the Prime Minister recognise that the outcome of the railway pay ballot demonstrated clearly just what trade unionists think of the patrician approach of the Secretary of State for Employment to industrial problems? Would he not make a real contribution to industrial peace if he now allowed the wind of change to blow through the Department of Employment?

The Prime Minister: I have had two very important discussions with the

Trades Union Congress in the past two months. During that time we have discussed fresh means of conciliation. Certainly the Government have shown their desire to find a way of avoiding disruption and damage of the kind which can be caused by these strikes. I understand that both the Confederation of British Industry and the TUC have produced their plans and are discussing them together—rightly so.

Mr. John Page: Was my right hon. Friend informed that his absolutely excellent speech was received with great enthusiasm by a packed audience of Conservative trade unionists?

The Prime Minister: Yes, it received whole-hearted support, but by far the greater part of the speech dealt with questions of training, redundancy and other matters affecting employment, which I believe also have the support of the whole trade union movement.

Mr. Clinton Davis: How does the Prime Minister square the assertion he made during the course of that speech—that what he wanted was not confrontation with the unions but co-operation with them—with the calculated decision today of the Secretary of State for Employment not to disclose to the House the grounds upon which he asserted that the railway trade unionists were not behind their union leadership?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows the Act perfectly well and he knows that that is not required by the Act.

Mr. Waddington: In spite of all that has emanated from the other side of the House, is there not already good evidence that the National Industrial Relations Court is making a very useful contribution to the solution of industrial relations problems?

The Prime Minister: I am prepared for this point to remain a matter of controversy in the House. But the trade unions themselves are now co-operating in working the Act and in appearing before the Court and putting their views to it. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman is so sceptical about the matters that we have discussed, he might at least acknowledge that during the first three months in which the unfair dismissals provisions have been in force more than 1,600


cases have been taken by individual employees to tribunals. This is the part we always emphasised—that industrial tribunals could help individual employees.

Mr. Prentice: Does not the Prime Minister realise that his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) will not do, nor will the replies that the Secretary of State for Employment gave earlier? Although the Solicitor-General was not required by the terms of the Act to present evidence to the court why the Government thought that the rank and file of the unions did not necessarily support their leaders, surely the Government owe an explanation to the House and to the country why they took this extraordinary view which has been proved absolutely wrong by the result of the ballot?

The Prime Minister: I do not in the least accept that, nor did the court which heard the application, nor did the Court of Appeal. The House is governed by the Act, in the same way as are the court and the Court of Appeal I believe that if—I emphasise "if"—there is to be disruption on the railways, the nation had better see that it is the determined will of those in the unions who voted for it.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place a copy of his speech to Scottish Conservatives on trade unions on Saturday, 13th May in the Library.

Mr. Meacher: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his speech at Perth on 13th May on industrial relations.

Mr. Duffy: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the annual conference of the Scottish Conservative Party in Perth on 13th May on industrial relations.

Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on industrial relations in Perth on 13th May.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a

copy of his public speech on trade union and collective bargaining made at Perth on 13th May, 1972.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place a copy of his public speech at Perth on Saturday, 13th May, 1972, on the subject of industrial relations, in the Library.

Mr. Douglas: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech at Perth on Saturday, 13th May, 1972, on the subject of industrial relations.

Mr. Ashton: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech in Perth on 13th May on industrial relations.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the public speech he made at Perth on 13th May on the subject of industrial relations.

The Prime Minister: I did so on 16th May, Sir.

Mr. Huckfield: Does the Prime Minister recall that he laid great stress on the need to represent consumer interests in trade union negotiations during that speech? Does he honestly think that by prolonging the railways dispute by going through that monumental exercise of trying to drive a wedge between railway workers and their unions the Government have acted in the best interests of the consumer? Or are not the Government about to abandon any pretence of representing the consumers, since food prices have risen by 17 per cent. since they took office?

The Prime Minister: I emphasised that, if there is to be a new arrangement for conciliation, it cannot be one which merely needs agreement between employers and employees which can be at the expense of the consumer. If the hon. Gentlemanand the Labour Party do not want that, but merely an arrangement in which trade unions and employers together can settle regardless of the interests of the consumer, they had better say so. I again emphasise that the ballot has given a further period without disruption or inconvenience to the British public or damage to the economy. I believe that that is worth while.

Mr. Meacher: As the Prime Minister waxed so eloquent about "one nation", how does he justify the fact that the £21-a-week railway worker would be worse off if he were to accept the Railways Board's best offer because of the loss of means-tested benefits under his Government's policy, whilst executives earning over £5,000 a year, on his own Government's figures, have each been given nearly £400 in the Budget? Why does not the Prime Minister admit that his "one nation" is a magic circle of surtax payers?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman is therefore saying that he opposes any policy of raising the wages of the lower-paid workers, he had better be quite clear about it, because that is the logical conclusion of what he said. This Government have done more to raise the tax threshold through the last Budget, as he knows, than any Government before them. Therefore, let the hon. Gentleman give credit where credit is due.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Would not a rail strike now be exceedingly damaging both to the economy and to the interests of the railway men themselves? As the gap between the two sides is now so narrow, is it not the fact that, given good will on both sides, it could be bridged?

The Prime Minister: Any industrial unrest is damaging to the economy in some form or other as well as being damaging to the interests, both short term and long term, of those who work in the industry. Therefore, every effort should be made to reach an agreement, but it cannot be an agreement which is constantly at the expense of the consumer by putting up fares, as it does in the case of the railways, and by increasing freight charges, which are then reflected in all other prices. There must in a negotiation be movement by both sides. The Railways Board has constantly moved. There has not been similar movement from the unions.

Mr. Archer: Does not the Prime Minister appreciate that he cannot both have a purposeful discussion with the trade unions and at the same time cast himself as the spokesman of the union-bashers, and that strident union bashing becomes no more plausible when it is clothed in legal vocabulary and labelled as being

in the public interest? Which horse does he intend to ride?

The Prime Minister: I am having perfectly meaningful discussions with the unions at this moment. This therefore contradicts the hon. and learned Gentleman's thesis. If he is saying that the unions should not be required to comply with the law passed by Parliament, I cannot accept it.

Mr. Wilkinson: Whilst not wishing in any way to comment on the dispute which is at present sub judice between Panal-pina Services Ltd. of Bradford—a container firm—and the Liverpool dockers, will my right hon. Friend indicate what steps the Government intend to take, when this matter is resolved, to make shop stewards more aware of their responsibilities under the Industrial Relations Act, which very much affects the industrial future of the heartland of northern England?

The Prime Minister: I do not wish to deal with any detailed cases in the House, especially when they are before the court. The court has already made certain comments on the question which my hon. Friend raised.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that when he made this speech to this packed audience he said that the Industrial Relations Act will not work by itself? He can say that again. He also talked about protecting the consumer. Would that be the same consumer who buys beef, who is priced out of the mortgage market, and who has to pay the new-style Tory rents? Is it not highly likely that he either is a trade unionist or has been a trade unionist, or that she is married to one?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to discuss agricultural matters he had better apply himself to the question why in any particular season there is a greater demand for beef than can be met. He knows full well that this is not only a European question; it is a world question.

Mr. Tapsell: Is not one of the important elements of the "one-nation" philosophy the protection of the poorest among the community? Do not those who consistently champion policies likely to encourage inflation, in particular by excessive wage demands in relation to


productivity, strike a serious blow at those least able to defend themselves?

The Prime Minister: This is absolutely true. It is the fact that over the last two years, when members of the Labour Party have encouraged every exorbitant wage claim they could see, they have damaged those who are the poorest in the community. On the other hand, the trade unions as well as employers and many hon. Members must make up their minds whether they are prepared to help the lower-paid employees without putting such a weight on the wage bill as a whole that it causes inflation. This is a serious, problem. I recognise the problems of differentials, but these problems must be faced if lower-paid workers are to be seriously helped.

Mr. Ashton: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why his Government brought in a Bill containing parts subject to the sub judice rule which gags the Press and Parliament and other major leaders of opinion and yet he persists in making inflammatory statements? Does he choose his occasions very carefully to make these statements or does he blatantly ignore the sub judice rule?

The Prime Minister: The sub judice rule applies to all courts and all matters before the courts, but the question of contempt is now being examined. When the committee reports, we shall be able to consider the matter further.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when he and his friends were in opposition they strongly advocated that the Government should accept in full the 30 per cent. wage claim of the doctors? Will he address himself to the question which was put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and look at tne so-called exorbitant wage increase which the railway men are being asked to accept? Does he not recognise that thousands of railway men with families, taking into account their loss of rebates and family income supplement and the rest, would be worse off with the increase? So far from the lower paid workers being protected, they will be penalised.

The Prime Minister: The previous Government were under the same obligation as we were concerning the doctors'

review board. We accepted the obligation. That is not the position with the wage negotiating machinery in the railway industry. There is provision for arbitration through the railways' own machinery, but it was rejected by the unions, although the Board was prepared to accept it, so the machinery did not operate.
The second point, which is important, as I fully recognise, concerns the tax threshold and the social service benefits threshold and the level at which they impinge on earnings. I am prepared to look at the figures, but I repeat that the Government, through the family income supplement and through the tax changes, have done more to help that group of the population than any other Government.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The Prime Minister referred to the sub judice rule and the Act passed by Parliament last year. Will he tell us whether he foresaw—I hope he will say that he did not foresee—that Parliament would be gagged for three weeks on a matter of public policy, a political decision taken by the responsible Minister on which he could not be questioned in the House, which must be totally unprecedented? Even when that close period is over, as it is now, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State refuses to be accountable to the House by giving his reasons for the references he made under the Act.

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can be correct in saying—I will check this—that what happened under the law was unprecedented, because whenever a Minister makes an application to the courts, it then becomes sub judice and it obviously remains so until the case is finished. It was emphasised throughout the debates on the Act that the court was a High Court with all the status and standing of a High Court. But I repeat that the whole question of contempt is being examined, and when the report is published the House will no doubt be able to consider its conclusions.

Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman queried whether what happened was unprecedented. Is it not a fact that the matters referred to the court and which it had to decide were matters of public interest which should be for Parliament and not for judges and that the only


question which they could consider about the right hon. Gentleman's submission was whether, when he said that he had reason to think that the railway unionists did not support their leaders, he had reason for it which he did not have to state to them and which he has now refused to state to the House, and they could report only on whether he was sane when he made his submission? Is this what the right hon. Gentleman meant when he referred to the Act? Can he give us any precedent when matters of public interest were disregarded by the courts in such a way that Parliament could not debate either those questions or the whole Government economic policy background to the decision?

The Prime Minister: This matter was dealt with by the judge in the lower court and by the appeal court, particularly by Lord Denning in his judgment. He set out what he considered the Act required of the Minister. Both judges discussed the points on which the Minister could be challenged, and they also discussed whether it might be legally possible but politically wise to do something else. I should not like to try to précis the views expressed by the learned judges in those cases, but it has long been a matter of argument in Parliament whether a Minister could give before the court his judgment as to what was required and whether the court had to accept that. There are precedents for that in much of our legislation. It has been argued in Parliament for a very long time.

Mr. Wilson: I am sorry to press the right hon. Gentleman further, but this matter affects the traditions of the House about the accountability of Ministers to Parliament. Is it not a fact that a Minister is accountable to Parliament for the decisions he takes? The right hon. Gentleman says that these matters were fully discussed by the court. Is he not aware that all the court could do was to take the law as it emerged from Parliament? Is he aware that the two Sections of the Act which were relevant to the long court consideration were debated by Parliament for only two hours and five minutes in one case and for only three hours and twenty-five minutes in the other case—because of the guillotine imposed by the Government? Therefore,

Parliament is gagged in respect of an Act which was passed through a gagged Parliament.

The Prime Minister: I was trying to carry on a serious discussion with the right hon. Gentleman and I do not think it is helped by emotive cries of that kind. This is a serious point. If the right hon. Gentleman is arguing that the Act should not have been passed or that the relevant Sections of it should be amended, that is, I agree, a perfectly tenable argument for him to put forward. But I should not like to give any further judgment about the Act without the opportunity of consultation and consideration. That would be only right on a legal matter. I could not accept that a Minister must discuss matters in the House which are sub judice under the normal rules. That is a matter for Mr. Speaker to decide, not me. I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) put forward proposals under which Ministers would take the decisions. We deliberately rejected that course in favour of an impartial court taking the decision.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I think that we should pass on to the next business.

Mr. Atkinson: On a point of order. I should like to raise a matter concerning the exchanges to which we have just listened and your ruling, Mr. Speaker, during Questions to the Secretary of State for Employment. You rebuked a Member for not being too careful about his remarks on the court and you thought that Members should be particularly careful in future when they refer to the court.
The point is that there is a basic difference between this court and any other court in that what is assumed to be the equivalent of a jury sits alongside the judge. Therefore, it must surely be reasonable for Members to criticise the four lay members of the court who are not in the same position as the judge in giving the ruling they have. Perhaps you would reconsider the comments which you, Mr. Speaker, made to an hon. Member about the sub judice rule and the care with which we should make remarks about the court.

Mr. Speaker: I do not recognise that as a point of order on which I have to rule now. All I said earlier was that hon. Members should exercise some care about what they say. They have respon-

sibility for what they say. I apply that to almost any question or statement they make. They should be careful about what they say.

HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL (BUSINESS COMMITTEE)

Motion made, and Question,
That the Report [3rd May] of the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee), and agreed to.

That the allotted days which under the Order [11th April] are given to the Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below and, subject to the provisions of that Order, each part of the Proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.


TABLE


Allotted day
Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


First day
New Clauses,




New Schedules,
8.00 p.m.



Amendments to Part I and Schedule 1,




Amendments to Part II and Schedules 2 and 3.




Amendments to Part III and Schedules 4 and 5
11.00 p.m.



Amendments to Part IV.



Second day
Amendments to Part V and Schedules 6 and 7
6.00 p.m.



Amendments to Part VI.




Amendments to Part VII,
8.00 p.m.



Amendments to Schedules 8 to 11.




Third Reading.
11.00 p.m.

Report considered accordingly.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Resolution.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No 43 (Business Committee), and agreed to.

Following is the report of the Business Committee:

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

Orders of the Day — HOUSES EXCLUDED FROM GENERAL DECONTROL

(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, section 34 of this Act shall not apply to a dwelling-house let on or subject to a controlled tenancy if, on the date applicable to the dwelling-house under that section—

(a) a closing order under section 15 or 18 of the Act of 1966, or a demolition order under the said section 15, has been made and served in accordance with that section (and not determined) with respect to the dwelling-house, or
(b) an order under paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 2 to the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 declaring that the dwelling-house does not meet the tolerable standard has been made and a notice stating the effect of the order has been served in accordance with paragraph 1(3) of that Schedule.

(2) The said section 34 shall apply to a dwelling-house excluded by subsection (1) above if—

(a) in the case of a dwelling-house excluded by virtue of paragraph (a) of that subsection, the closing order or the demolition order is quashed by the sheriff on appeal or determined by the local authority, or
(b) in the case of a dwelling-house excluded by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection, the order in question is not confirmed or is reduced by a court, 
and the date applicable to the dwelling-house for the purposes of the said section 34 shall be the date of occurrence of the event upon which that section applied to the dwelling-house by virtue of this subsection.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.45 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time new Clause 4 entitled "Houses excluded from general decontrol":
Section 34 of this Act shall not apply to a dwelling-house let on or subject to a con-

trolled tenancy if, on the date applicable to the dwelling-house under that section, there is not in force in relation to that dwelling-house a qualification certificate within the meaning of section 44 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1969.

Mr. Campbell: That is convenient to this side of the House, Mr. Speaker.
The purpose of the Clause is to exempt from the provisions of Clause 34—which provides for the conversion of controlled tenancies into regulated tenancies—any controlled tenancy of a dwellinghouse in respect of which the local authority has made certain orders, under existing statutory provisions, the effect of which is to declare that the dwellinghouse does not meet the tolerable standard.
The Bill in no way alters the 1969 Act procedure whereby a controlled tenancy can become a regulated tenancy upon the issue of a qualification certificate—whereby a local authority certifies that the dwellinghouse meets certain conditions, including the tolerable standard. But, after considering all the arguments advanced in Committee, the Government adhere to the view that this qualification certificate procedure should not in future be the only main method of bringing controlled tenancies within rent regulation. Such a certificate is not, in our view, essential.
The conversion programme under Clause 34 ought not to be delayed by requirements that the house is up to the tolerable standard and that a certificate has been issued—this would be to confuse slum clearance/unfit houses procedure with the procedures which are necessary for protecting tenants in relation to rent. Such protection already exists in the fair rent system. The only desirable qualification that should be made to this assertion that the fair rent system is in itself sufficient protection is that, for practical administrative reasons—not because the fair rent system is inadequate—it is sensible to exclude from the conversion provisions under the Bill any dwellinghouse in respect of which the local authority had made an order under the existing statutory provisions declaring that it did not meet the tolerable standard. Since the new Clause now covers all cases where statutory action can be taken against houses as houses which fail to meet the tolerable standard, and where the individual house is thereby


identified and the exemption can be related to it, there do not seem to be any other cases which can be included.
It should also be borne in mind that, even if none of the courses covered in the new Clause has been taken against the house, it is, first, not decontrolled until the relevant date laid down in Clause 34—and for the lowest value houses this is 1st January, 1975, by which time most houses in this category should have been dealt with—and, secondly, the fair rent will reflect the overall condition of the house including the fact, if applicable, that it is a house which may not meet the tolerable standard. It does not follow that rents in such cases will be increased: There are numerous examples of rents being reduced under the fair rent system.
I know that this Clause was dropped from the Bill in Committee, and I understand that right hon. and hon. Members opposite will suggest that new Clause 4 should be inserted instead. However, I think that they will agree that something of this kind is needed. We believe that new Clause 1 is the new Clause which should be added to the Bill.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the argument about new Clause 4? The deficiency of new Clause 1 is that it is not extensive enough. It is simply a replacement of the Clause which was defeated in Committee in protest at the fact that it was inadequate. Surely the right hon. Gentleman should defend new Clause 1 in that context and say that on consideration he does not think that it should be strengthened. I do not believe that, but at least he should argue that and he should justify why he is against, as I assume he is, new Clause 4.

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Member has raised two points which I will deal with briefly. The first is a procedural one. I felt that it was correct for new Clause 4 to be moved, if it is to be moved, and I will reply later, as is the custom on Report, to the arguments on it. On the second point, I have explained, pointed out and defended new Clause 1.

Mr. Frank McElhone: In supporting new Clause 4 I shall begin by explaining that the 35

sittings we had in Standing Committee were characterised by a lack of information and a great deal of ignorance by the Government about Scottish housing. I am sorry to say that the Secretary of State, who should have been present at those sittings, has compounded the error. He stated that the Clause was dropped. In fact, it was defeated. We attempted to be reasonable in dealing with houses which were to be excluded from general decontrol. The reason we voted against the Question "That Clause 35 stand part of the Bill" was that we had tabled at least three reasonable Amendments to it. One was to leave out houses of £25 rateable value and under from the provisions providing for decontrol in 1975. When that was defeated we thought it reasonable to leave out houses without a bath or an inside toilet. We believed that in 1972 it was absolutely shocking to decontrol houses which lacked these amenities. Our third Amendment suggested that houses which came under the 12-month period of medical office of health should not be decontrolled.
These were reasonable Amendments and they were tabled on the advice of officials in Glasgow and other local authorities. Nevertheless, albeit they were only defeated by the casting vote of the Chairman on two occasions, they were defeated and therefore we took exception to Clause 35.
It might be worth repeating what the Under-Secretary of State for Development said at the time. He made the same point as the Secretary of State has made today, saying that the qualification certificate procedure under the 1969 Act was not disappearing altogether. Either the Secretary of State does not know the 1969 Act or he is at odds with the Under-Secretary. Although the Under-secretary made the point the Secretary of State put forward this afternoon, he concluded by saying:
but it will not always have to be used as has been the case up to now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, First Scottish Standing Committee. 25th April, 1972; c. 1883.]
We put down the Amendments on the advice of specialists in housing matters. We are fortunate to have people working in local authorities who have dedicated their lives to housing, both as councillors and officials. They advised us that there was a great deal of concern over the


matter. It came to light when my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) made the point in Committee. I shall quote from the Glasgow document which was compiled by the officials and which my hon. Friend read out.
It would also appear that the classification certificate under the 1969 Act whereby a landlord could only increase his rent to a fair rent if the local authority had certified that the house was of a tolerable standard or would be of a tolerable standard if proposed repairs were carried out no longer applies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, First Scottish Standing Committee, 25th April, 1972; c. 1915.]
It is shocking that we should allow the situation where rent for houses of £25 rateable value and under can be substantially increased without a qualification certificate and without a guarantee that the property owner will spend the money on the house.
We heard a cry from the Government side about the "poor landlords". I can only speak from experience in my constituency where the problem exists in tenement blocks. Almost without exception at least 50 per cent. of the flats in the tenements in my area have been sold at the inflated values that must be paid for property today and where often one flat will sell for more than the whole block originally cost. But at no time has the property owner ever used that money or part of it to renovate the property. There is no guarantee if the increase is permitted that the property owner will spend the money on the property. The problem can be gauged by figures illustrating the situation in Glasgow. The report of the medical officer of health in 1970 stated that there were 31,000 houses with outside toilets and 76,211 houses without a bath. In spite of the slum clearance subsidy which will operate under the Bill, and in spite of the actions of the local authority in Glasgow, which is now Labour-controlled, we would be displaying optimism to an unwarranted degree to expect all slum houses of this type to be cleared by 1975. It is not possible because of the shortage of land within the Glasgow boundaries and because we are dependent on the overspill programme which will be destroyed by the Bill. The overspill programme is particularly important for

families from this type of property, especially within the Gorbals area.
The people who live in this type of property, the lowest class of property, are generally elderly or unemployed. The landlord will be given a handout or subsidy from public funds and if nothing else the Bill is a landlords' charter. To allow landlords to press for an increase without any guarantee of the money being spent on the property is wrong.
In our proceedings we are working to a strict timetable and in the interests of other hon. Members, particularly on the Opposition side, who were not on the Committee but who wish to participate, I intend to be brief.
We have been told by the Government that we should have faith in the rent officers because they will not permit rent increases on property of this type. There is a great deal of faith in rent officers and they are doing an extremely difficult job. I pay tribute to those I have dealt with, but while the rent officer may fix a reasonable rent, the rent assessment panel is a different kettle of fish. It consists of three people. Two of them are professional people—a lawyer and a surveyor—and the third is a trade unionist who is always out-voted. There is no appeal against a decision by the rent assessment panel.
A rent officer might refuse to increase the rent above a level which would be reasonable for this type of property. But the property owner would know that he could go higher than the rent officer by taking the matter to the rent assessment panel which would award a substantial increase. It would be shocking if our proposal was not agreed to. It would be reasonable to safeguard people living in this type of slum property which comes into the lowest classification, but we do not have here the safeguards provided in the excellent 1969 Act.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and his colleagues in the Government at that time introduced the 1969 Act, they proceeded from a clear knowledge of Scottish housing problems. Section 44(1) makes certain provisions which are relevant here—I shall not detail them now—and Section 45(2) lays down the terms for an application for a qualification certificate.
In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State spoke of the delay which would occur with an avalanche of claims to rent officers requiring to be settled. There are two points to be made about that. First, under the Bill a property owner may make his application six months before the relevant date in 1975. Thus, there is time for him to lodge his application. Also under Section 47 of the 1969 Act, it is possible for a provisional certificate to be issued. As I say, the 1969 Act was an excellent Act. In this respect, it provides that, if a landlord wishes to press for an increase in the rent of a property which does not conform to the standards laid down, he may be issued with a provisional certificate, and he then has to guarantee that, if an increase in rent is given, he will bring his property up to the required standard.
Many of the excellent provisions in the 1969 Act are not embodied in the present Bill. It is a bad Bill, a Bill for the benefit of private landlords. It will wreak great hardship on tenants in my area and in other city areas. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Government, with some compassion and, perhaps, a late understanding of the problem, will recognise the need for new Clause 4 and accept it.

4 p.m.

Mr. Gavin Strang: I did not have the honour and pleasure of taking part in the Committee's deliberations, and I welcome an opportunity now to say a few works on this issue. In a sense, the division between the Opposition and the Government typifies the difference between our approach to housing and theirs. Our approach is to use this opportunity to move at an early stage to the provision of standard housing amenities which would not otherwise be provided.
Many of the houses covered by new Clause 4 are not covered by new Clause 1, for good reason. It is typical that on this issue the Government are giving way to the wishes of the landlords. That is what it amounts to. They are not interested in the provision of these amenities. Neither they nor landlords welcome the idea of it being obligatory to provide standardamenities when tenancies are transferred from control to regulation.
I urge the Government to take this opportunity to think again and consider the whole question most seriously. We are discussing one of the very few changes which the Committee made in all its sittings. The Secretary of State should defer to the democratic wish of the Committee and allow new Clause 4 to take the place of his new Clause 1.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: This is an important matter, and I can only say that the Secretary of State's attitude surprises me. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) reminded us, the deletion of Clause 35 was one of the few occasions when we obliged the Government to think again. Procedurally, I agree, we knocked out of the Bill a Clause which was essential to it, and we shall, obviously, have to vote for new Clause 1 if no alternative is open to us. In effect, the Government have had to retable the Clause which was knocked out of the Bill in Committee.
What is disappointing, however, is that the Government have not put into the Bill any provisions extending beyond new Clause 1. This is why we have put down our new Clause 4. If the right hon. Gentleman were to say, as I hoped he would, that he accepted new Clause 4 or, as I agree he might, that it was not well drafted—that there were technical objections to it, that there ought to be references to other legislation and so on—but that he accepted the spirit of it, I should be content, and I am sure that the debate would come to a quick end. But he has said nothing of the kind. In effect, he asks us to make a new case.
We made a good case in Committee. Indeed, I thought that one objection to our argument was that we made a rather extensive case and we caught the Government with their trousers down, being able to defeat them and knock their Clause out of the Bill. True, there were no abstentions on the Government side—we cannot say that hon. Members opposite were converted by our eloquence—but we certainly made some impact on matters at that time. I find it most disappointing, therefore, that the Secretary of State should stand pat on what his Under-Secretary of State said in Committee.
What is the point of debate in Committee if, at the end of the day, on Report


and, no doubt, in the other place, the Government stand pat on their original decision? I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to look at the matter again. His new Clause 1 is no more than a rehearsal of what we had before.
I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon, and I took him to imply—I may have misunderstood—that improvement grants would ensure that many of the deficiencies in these houses would be overcome by the time the properties were decontrolled. I should like him or the Under-Secretary to expand on that. I admit that the properties which we are considering here, with one or two exceptions, are those in the lower range, the sort of properties which lack the tolerable standard amenities described in Section 39 of the 1968 Act. But the right hon. Gentleman implies that, by the time they are decontrolled in the calendar year 1974, so that they come under regulated rents in the year beginning 1975, the deficiencies will have been remedied and the properties improved. I am not sure whether that is his argument, but I take it that that is his concession.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I did not put that construction on what the Secretary of State said. I thought his point was that, by the time 1975 comes, these bad houses will have been demolished.

Dr. Mabon: I accept my hon. Friend's correction; that may well be the implication. However, I must now repeat the request which I made in an intervention at the end of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, that he give some justification for his new Clause 1. He ought to develop the case a little more.
It will be physically impossible in so short a time to improve or to demolish all these properties and in that way take them out of this area of contest. It is just not on. In Scotland last year, about 20,000 slum dwellings were demolished—admittedly, almost all in this category, though not entirely. That compares with a figure of 19,000 in 1970, and with a target figure of 30,000 which the Labour Government laid down as being the number which, if we could achieve it, would mean that all properties in this category

would without doubt be removed in ten years.
I take it that the right hon. Gentleman argues that, somehow or other, these properties will all bedemolished in three years. That is not physically possible, and I doubt that it is even administratively possible. I cannot therefore, accept that as a reason for saying that new Clause 1 should remain unbuttressed by any further provisions such as we proposed in Committee or such as are enshrined in new Clause 4.
I invite the Secretary of State to look at the matter again. He has the chance to make amends in the other place. It is not good enough to leave matters in their present state. It is not good enough merely to add new Clause 1 and defeat new Clause 4 or any variant of it.
n 1975, under the regulated rents system, there will be houses the tenants of which will not have a fixed bath or shower, will not have a wash-hand basin or hot and cold water supply, who will not have a water closet in the house, and who, indeed, will be bereft of many of the ordinary housing conveniences.
I cannot believe that any Government, even a Conservative Government, are willing to put up with that in 1975. It is beyond my belief that they are so bereft of an understanding of Scotland's housing problem that they are willing to authorise the change now proposed without any further rectification.
I strongly appeal to Ministers to think again. They will have their new Clause 1, but they must not imagine that that is the end of the story. There must be some addition to their new Clause to strengthen it and to make Section 39 of the 1968 Act a reality. Without that, all they will do will be to condemn people to live in unwholesome dwellings and be charged quite unacceptable rents.

Mr. Alex Eadie: I intervene with a request for some clarification on this point, because if we are to vote on this matter surely we must know what we are voting about.
Could we be told what these provisions mean in terms of a closing order under Section 17 of the Act? The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that local authorities dispense a certain amount of


compassion when handling closing orders, especially when aged individuals are involved.
Those of us who have had experience of local authorities will recollect what happens when these matters are dealt with. When a committee hears a closing order on a house which contains an aged couple who have lived in the area all their lives, the procedure which is sometimes adopted by a local authority is that the old people are given a life undertaking in that house. This procedure could be criticised, but if we pause for a moment to consider the situation it surely must cause social hardship to remove from a house people who have lived there for 60 years and could be equivalent to a death sentence for that couple.
If these provisions are agreed, will this mean that local authorities will not be allowed to dispense this sort of compassionate understanding, which is usually reached in consultation with medical officers of health? These cases, though perhaps few, are of course extremely important for the aged people involved. I am asking whether the provision, if passed, will take from a local authority the power to give a life undertaking to an aged couple in respect of their property.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: It appears that the purpose of new Clause 4 is to exclude from the provisions of Clause 34 any controlled tenancy of a dwelling house in respect of which, at the date applicable to the house under Clause 34, a certificate has not been obtained by the landlord from the local authority that the house is provided with all the standard amenities, that it is in good repair, having regard to its age, character and locality and disregarding internal decorative repair, and that it meets the tolerable standard.
In general controlled rents are the same as they were 15 years ago and in comparison with the rapid movement of all other costs and prices are now at a completely unreasonable level. The extremely low level of rents payable—the average rent of controlled tenancies is about 30p a week—coupled with rapidly rising costs have meant that many owners have been unable to maintain their houses adequately, let alone to provide for any return on capital outlay. Con-

trolled houses are for the most part being poorly maintained or not maintained at all. That is the background against which we are considering these Clauses.
If these houses are to be saved from complete dilapidation, with the attendant misery that would fall on their occupiers, more money must be made available. There is no prospect of high rents being registered for houses in poor repair. The fair rent formula in the 1965 Act, now consolidated in the—

Mr. William Ross: How can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that that will be so? There is no guarantee to that effect at all.

Mr. Campbell: If the right hon. Gentleman will listen to the rest of the sentence, which I was about to complete, he will realise that I was saying that the fair rent formula in his own 1965 Act, which we assisted at the time, now consolidated as Section 42 of the 1971 Act, specifically requires the state of repair to be taken into account. The essential protection to the tenant—which, unlike the present legislation, is not at the expense of the owner—is provided by the fair rent system, phasing of rent increases and, most important, rent allowances for those in need.
The Francis Committee's report unanimously recommended that all controlled tenancies should become regulated as soon as practicable. In reaching this conclusion it commented on the evidence it had received as to the injustice of perpetuating the present system of controlled rents. The Committee pointed out that controlled tenants and regulated tenants occupying similar accommodation in the same locality, and often in the same building, pay very different rents. It instanced a tenement house in Glasgow where the controlled tenant paid a rent of some £28 a year while the regulated tenant occupying similar accommodation in the same block paid a registered rent of about £115 a year.
Is it fair to regulated tenants—who were brought into the fair rents system by the previous Government in 1965, without the benefit of rent allowances—that their neighbours who, through chance, hold controlled tenancies should continue to pay a rent out of all proportion to the cost of maintaining the house?

Dr. Dickson Mabon: This is not a fair point to make in this debate since a house such as that to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is a house which is out with the tolerable standard. We are now debating a matter related to tolerable standards and houses which should be within the system. Such a house is affected by all the qualifications laid down in Section 39 of the 1968 Act and consolidated in previous legislation. Therefore, the Secretary of State is not being fair in his argument since we are now talking about houses which are, and will remain, below the tolerable standard for the next five, or even 10 years.

Mr. Campbell: I am coming to that aspect, but I am at the moment giving the background to these Clauses and dealing with the Francis recommendations. This situation bears even more heavily on the regulated tenant if he shares the same landlord as the controlled tenant as part of his rent may well have to be used to help to maintain his controlled neighbour's house.
The Francis Committee also commented on the inadequacy of the 1969 Housing Act and again referred to Glasgow as an illustration of that inadequacy so far as it relates to the conversion into regulated tenancies. The Committee saw controlled houses in tenements in good repair but lacking one or more standard amenities; for example, a bathroom. It seemed to the Francis Committee that these tenancies could never be converted under the 1969 Act because it would be impracticable to install bathrooms in these smaller houses without depriving the tenants of essential living accommodation, and also to carry out the work of installing a bathroom, even if there was spare living accommodation, except at enormous cost.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite may say that the owners should take advantage of the very generous grants made available by this Government for such improvement work. But how would the owners find the balance of the cost if the rents remain, as the new Clause would require them to remain, at the existing derisory level?
The Francis Committee considered the precise point behind the new Clause—namely whether conversion from control

to regulation should be conditional on the landlords obtaining a certificate of good repair—but the Francis Committee decided against this.
One reason advanced by the Francis Committee for not making the conversion conditional on the obtaining of a certificate of good repair was that officers of public health departments were already heavily engaged in other housing work and long delays in dealing with applications could result. But what would be the effect of the new Clause which would require a house to have a qualification certificate by "the applicable date" if it were to be converted in terms of Clause 34? It would mean that Scottish public health departments could receive, between the coming into force of Part V of the Bill and 1st January, 1973, up to 30,000 applications for certificates—that is, from owners of houses with a rateable value of £50 or more—as all these landlords would be anxious to obtain a certificate before the "applicable date", which in their case would be 1st January, 1973.
Then there are the 30,000 or so houses with a rateable value of less than £50 but not less than £25 whose applicable date is 1st January, 1974. Obviously a flood of applications of this magnitude could cause immense delays in issuing certificates and, as it would be almost impossible to deal first with all those houses in excellent repair and provided with all the standard amenities, it would run the severe risk of reducing the present opportunities provided in the 1969 Act to convert controlled tenancies to rent regulation. This would be quite unacceptable.

Mr. McElhone: I understand the dilemma of the Secretary of State when he envisages his Department having to deal with an avalanche of requests, but he will see that there is in Section 47 of the 1969 Act provision for provisional qualification certificates. If there is a rush of applications, it will not prevent the authorisation of provisional certificates which at some later date would have to be guaranteed if the rent was increased.

Mr. Campbell: There is provision in the Act, but it was not meant to deal with an avalanche of applications of this kind. The hon. Gentleman is recommending that the applicant should be given provisional certificates immediately


without the cases being looked into. That was not the intention of the 1969 Act.
The Bill provides safeguards against the rent of a dwelling house in poor repair and with inadequate facilities being raised dramatically as a result of its conversion from a controlled to a regulated tenancy. The only way in which the rent of a dwelling house could be increased from the controlled rent following conversion involves the intervention of the rent officer. It cushions private tenants on low incomes against any increases in rent which may be made. Under Clause 16 local authorities must bring into operation not later than 1st January, 1973, an allowance scheme for private tenants in their areas, and such a scheme will ensure that tenants who need help with their rent payments will receive assistance.
The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) mentioned houses below £25 valuation which were to be closed or demolished by 1st January, 1975. We estimate that there are about 30,000 houses in Scotland below the £25 valuation. Since Glasgow Corporation closed or demolished 10,000 houses in 1971, it is not unreasonable to assume that, making allowance for some of those being of a greater valuation than £25, Glasgow will be able to deal with its share of these houses by 1st January, 1975.
The hon. Member for Greenock told us that new Clause 1 was necessary, and I think that both sides of the House agree about that. He and other hon. Members suggest that the House should go further and should add new Clause 4 as well. I have indicated that this would not be appropriate. I do not advise the House to adopt new Clause 4.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The right hon. Gentleman referred to 30,000 houses being below the £25 valuation. But how many houses are below the tolerable standard among the 100,000 houses which are still in control?

Mr. Campbell: I am afraid that I have not that figure to hand. I shall attempt to get it for the hon. Gentleman during the course of the debate.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The Secretary of State has made a characteristically vague attempt to justify the rejection of new

Clause 4. He answered none of the questions put to him. A number of my hon. Friends raised some pertinent points. We received no answers.
The right hon. Gentleman did not make clear what he thought should be done with houses which are below the tolerable standard. He said that they would be "dealt with by 1975". That may mean anything. It may mean, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) suggested, that they will be brought up to the tolerable standard by 1975. Alternatively it may mean that they will be demolished or closed by 1975. Another possibility is a combination of the two. Judging from my own experience, many of those houses which are not of the tolerable standard have rateable values greater than £25 per annum, and I believe that the figure for houses below the tolerable standard is likely to be of the order of 50,000. We were told in Committee that there were 100,000 to 120,000 houses still to be brought under rent regulation and that probably half were below the tolerable standard. That means that probably 50,000 houses are involved.
I do not see how anyone can justify raising rents by one penny on houses which are below the tolerable standard. The Secretary of State said there were provisions in the Bill to make certain that rents would not be raised to an unreasonable level and he spoke of his trust in rent officers and rent assessment committees. I do not see the same degree of compassion and justice in rent officers and rent assessment committees that the right hon. Gentleman does. But even granting his trust in them, there should be no possibility of even a penny rent increase on houses with no baths and no internal WCs and where perhaps tenants have to go downstairs and along to the ends of gardens to WCs. The Secretary of State should be ashamed of attempting to justify such a provision.
If the Secretary of State means what he says when he speaks of his compassion and feeling for those who live in houses of an intolerable standard, he ought to bear in mind that many properties of this type will be open and lived in for longer than we should wish—

Mr. Gordon Campbell: There have been and can be rent reductions. As I


said, it is a matter of taking into account the state of the house.
Perhaps I might take this opportunity to answer the question raised by the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon). We do not know exactly the number of houses. There are 215,000 houses under the tolerable standard, but it is not known what proportion of them are under controlled tenancies. It could be a large number.

Mr. Hughes: Before returning to my theme, may I say that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look carefully at the figure of 215,000 houses which he says are below the tolerable standard? Some of them must be owner-occupied. My understanding is that the total number in the private sector in Scotland is around the 200,000 mark. I do not see how there can be more houses below the tolerable standard than there are to be rented.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I hope that my hon. Friend will appeal to the Secretary of State to explain his reply, because he has not answered my question. How many of the 100,000 houses which the right hon. Gentleman is decontrolling and taking into registration are below the tolerable standard? Never mind the 215,000 anywhere else. Will he concentrate on the 100,000 that we are discussing in this debate?

Mr. Hughes: I shall try to get that answer from the Secretary of State. Judging from the expressions on the faces of right hon. and hon. Members on the Government side, my estimate of 50,000 is not far off the mark. However, before the right hon. Gentleman intervened to give the information which I did not understand, I was saying that if he really believes what he says and if we are to accept what he says about having compassion for people living in dreadful accommodation, he ought to accept new Clause 4 which guarantees that there will be no rent increases. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the possibility of rent reductions. However, it is possible to count the number of reductions on the fingers of one hand and still have spare fingers afterwards.

Mr. John Robertson: Whatever one may say about rent controlled houses, one matter which is certain is

that the fair rent machinery does not produce fair rents. How can it? Rent assessment committees are peopled by those with a vested interest in the business. Two out of every three have a vested interest in seeing that house rents are increased.
I have some experience of the operation of the fair rent machinery in Paisley, where some astonishing increases have taken place. The advice of the rent officer has been thrown aside. He has been told by the chairman of the local factors' association that unless the rent that the association wants is agreed to he is wasting his time, since the matter will be referred immediately to the rent assessment committee. Strangely enough these committees never seem to disagree with the factors' association, which is always represented by one of its officers. One does not find a private landlord appealing to a rent assessment committee. The appeal is organised by the factors' association which represents all house owners and the association demands what it thinks should be a fair rent.
We have had increases in respect of houses which are below what one would call the tolerable standard, many of them in the region of £2·50, and often almost twice what the assessor judges to be the value. Judging from the way these committees are working, an unfair rent machinery is in operation. There is no way in which they can make a judgment.
I remember drawing a comparison between rents fixed by rent assessment committees and rent officers in London and in Paisley. I took a house in London built in 1935 consisting of five apartments. A lower rental was fixed for it than for a tenement house in Paisley consisting of two rooms and a kitchen which had no inside toilet, no bathroom and which was built in 1898. The house in London was not in a slum area. In fact it was in Harrow, a residential area. The astonishing result is that an old tenement house in Paisley is assessed at a higher rental than a semi-detached house in London with all facilities and amenities—inside toilets, a bathroom and everything else.
How the level of rents is arrived at in Scotland I do not know. I have tried to discover. I wrote to the Secretary of


State asking for a sample of the findings of rent assessment committees in Scotland. Apparently they are not available. The findings of rent assessment committees in London are available. In fact they are in the Library. However the details for Scotland are not available from the Secretary of State and one cannot make a comparison between one area and another. We are not allowed to know.
What we do know is that the fair rent system is not doing the job that it was intended to do. It cannot do that job so long as we have committees peopled with professional persons who have a vested interest in putting up rents and who very often, if they are not the owners of the properties concerned, are people who deal with houses, who factor houses and who make their living from this business.
The whole system is utterly wrong and can only give rise to gross injustice. Although new Clause 4 is essential if there is to be any justice, in my view it does not go far enough. I hope that the Secretary of State will look again at the so-called fair rent machinery, because it is anything but the one which is being operated today.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) pointed out that the different attitudes of the two sides in discussing this Bill have been clarified. In this debate on new Clause 1 and new Clause 4 that point is well vouched. It is fair to say that on this side of the House the concern is not with procedure and not with mere administrative matters. We are much more concerned about improving Scotland's housing stock. Therefore we take the attitude that there should be no decontrol in terms of Part V of the Bill without positive improvement. That is a reasonable view to take.
In contrast the Government are adopting the position that there should be blind decontrol in the faith that substandard houses will be demolished before too many years have passed. That will not do. That is why the Opposition must oppose new Clause 1.
The attitudes of the two sides of the House can be illustrated clearly by the different approaches of the Housing

(Scotland) Act, 1969, and the Bill. The Section of the 1969 Act corresponding to Clause 34 is Section 44, a substantial part of which the Secretary of State has quoted. That provided that there should be no conversion of an existing controlled tenancy unless it met all the standard amenities:
that is, in good repair, having regard to its age, character and locality and disregarding internal decorative repair, and that it meets the tolerable standard.
Some of my hon. Friends have referred to the tolerable standard and how moderate it is. Despite that, the Government are seeking to maintain without adequate proof that they are justified, for what are clearly administrative reasons, in this blind decontrol of houses. We say again that that is not good enough. It was said in Committee and we say it clearly again today.
I am forced to the view that our criticism in Committee was correct. If the new Clause is added to the Bill it will substantially reinstate Clause 35 which was taken out of the Bill because it was nothing more or less than a slum landlord's charter. In fact, it still is. So far as I can see, only one change has been made between old Clause 35 and new Clause 1. Apparently some words have been added at the end of the first subsection. The old Clause stopped at the word "made". The new Clause adds
and a notice stating the effect of the order has been served in accordance with paragraph 1(3) of that Schedule".
It is fair to make two points. First, these additional words tighten the net. They do not relax the provisions in any way. Secondly, if there is any substance in the Secretary of State's claim that houses would be demolished before this Part of the Bill came into operation, the answer must be that these additional words are unnecessary because they obviously contemplate a gap between declaring that a house does not meet the tolerable standard and the service of a notice. Therefore, the Secretary of State can have satisfaction only if he imagines that houses will be demolished in the interval between the making of an order and when the service of a notice is achieved. It is unrealistic to suppose that that will happen.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I thought I heard the hon. and learned Gentleman


say that the Opposition must oppose new Clause 1. How does he reconcile that with the statement by his hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) that new Clause 1 is essential and necessary to the Bill?

Mr. Murray: I did not understand my hon. Friend to be meaning otherwise. Unfortunately, he is not in the Chamber at the moment. I understood my hon. Friend was simply saying that there ought to be a new Clause between Clauses 34 and 35 as they appear in the Bill after its passage through the Committee. Obviously there is a gap which must be filled. That is what my hon. Friend obviously meant. [Interruption.] I will read in HANSARD what was said, but that was what I understood my hon. Friend to mean. Certainly it is sensible to say that there must be a new Clause to fill the gap. We are not doubting that. We accept that there must be something to fill the gap and we suggest that it should be filled by new Clause 4. I understand that for procedural reasons we shall not be able to vote on new Clause 4. Therefore, we can only show our dissatisfaction with the plug the Government are seeking to put in this gap by voting against new Clause 1.
I should like to reinforce what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock. At the end of his speech he implored the Government, before the Bill was finally enacted, to reconsider whether some improvement could be made to meet the argument which we are pressing.
I have pointed out the merits of new Clause 4 in contrast with new Clause 1.

I noted that the Secretary of State put forward as the merits of new Clause 1 that his version would not hold up the procedure of decontrol. His words were that the procedure of decontrol should not be held up. Therefore, when it comes to the crunch, it is administrative convenience which has motivated new Clause 1.

In contrast, the Opposition put forward the need for positive improvement in the housing stock of Scotland. That must come first. We say there should be no decontrol and that not one penny of decontrolled rent should be added to any houses if they do not meet the tolerable standard. It is intolerable that there should be non-tolerable houses still subject to this amount of freedom under the Bill.

The right hon. Gentleman said that it would be sensible to exclude certain houses. Again, we have the key to the Government's thinking on new Clause 1. The new Clause and its predecessor, old Clause 35, are motivated by administrative convenience. It is a nuisance to have houses which do not fit neatly into a new or an old statutory scheme so they are to be wiped out by this blind decontrol. I repeat, the right hon. Gentleman said that it is sensible to exclude certain houses. The Opposition think it is sensible, indeed essential, to insist that houses are to be tolerable if they are to be lived in. For these reasons, we shall vote against the new Clause.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 266. Noes 248.

Division No. 199.]
AYES
[4.50 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bossom, Sir Clive
Clegg, Walter


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstesd)
Bowden, Andrew
Cockeram, Eric


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Braine, Sir Bernard
Cooke, Robert


Astor, John
Bray, Ronald
Coombs, Dreek


Atkins, Humphrey
Brewis, John
Cordle, John


Awdry, Daniel
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Cormack, Patrick


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Costain, A. P.


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Crouch, David


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Crowder, F. P.


Batsford, Brian
Bryan, Sir Paul
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)


Beamish, Col, Sir Tufton
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Bell, Ronald
Buck, Antony
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.Jame


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Burden, F. A.
Dean, Paul


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F


Benyon, W.
Carlisle, Mark
Dixon, Piers


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Drayson, G. B.


Biffen, John
Chapman, Sydney
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Biggs-Davison, John
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Dykes, Hugh


Blaker, Peter
Chichester-Clark, R.
Eden, Sir John


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Churchill, W. S.
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Body, Richard
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)




Emery, Peter
Lambton, Lord
Redmond, Robert


Farr, John
Lamont, Norman
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Fell, Anthony
Lane, David
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Fidler, Michael
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Ridsdale, Julian


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Loveridge, John
Rost, Peter


Fowler, Norman
Luce, R. N.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Fox, Marcus
McAdden, Sir Stephen
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
McArthur, Ian
Scott, Nicholas


Fry, Peter
McCrindle, R. A.
Sharples, Richard


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
McLaren, Martin
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Gardner, Edward
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Gibson-Watt, David
McMaster, Stanley
Simeons, Charles


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)
Sinclair, Sir George


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Skeet, T. H. H.


Godber, Rt Hn. J. B.
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Goodhart, Philip
Maddan, Martin
Soref, Harold


Gorst, John
Madel, David
Speed, Keith


Gower, Raymond
Maginnis, Jonn E.
Spence, John


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Sproat, Iain


Gray, Hamish
Marten, Neil
Stainton, Keith


Green, Alan
Mather, Carol
Stanbrook, Ivor


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maude, Angus
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Grylls Michael
Maudling, Rt Hn. Reginald
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Gummer, J. Selwyn
Mawby, Ray
Stokes, John


Gurden, Harold
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sutcliffe, John


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Tapsell, Peter


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)



Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)



Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Moate, Roger
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Molyneaux, James
Tebbit, Norman


Haselhurst, Alan
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Temple, John M.


Havers, Michael
Monro, Hector
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Hawkins, Paul
Montgomery, Fergus
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Hayhoe, Barney
More, Jasper
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hicks, Robert
Morrison, Charles
Tilney, John


Hiley, Joseph
Mudd, David
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Murton, Oscar
Trew, Peter


Holland, Philip
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Tugendhat, Christopher


Holt, Miss Mary
Neave, Airey
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Hornby, Richard
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Howell, David (Guildford)
Normanton, Tom
Waddington, David


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Nott, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hunt, John
Onslow, Cranley
Ward, Dame Irene


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Warren, Kenneth


Iremonger, T. L.
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Weatherill, Bernard


James, David
Page, Graham (Crosby)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wiggin, Jerry


Jessel, Toby
Parkinson, Cecil
Wilkinson, John


Johnson, Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Percival, Ian
Winterton, Nicholas


Jopling, Michael
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Pink, R. Bonner
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Kershaw, Anthony
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Woodnutt, Mark


Kilfedder, James 
Price, David (Eastleigh) 
Worsley, Marcus


Kimball, Marcus
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Younger, Hn. George


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis



Kinsey, J. R.
Quennell, Miss J. M.



Kirk, Peter
Raison, Timothy
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kitson, Timothy
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Mr. Tim Fortescue and Mr. Victor Goodhew.


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter



Knox, David




NOES


Abse, Leo
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Bradley, Tom


Albu, Austen
Baxter, William
Broughton, Sir Alfred


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)


Ashley, Jack
Bidwell, Sidney
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)


Ashton, Joe
Bishop, E. S.
Buchan, Norman


Atkinson, Norman
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)


Barnes, Michael
Booth, Albert
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)







Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pardoe, John


Carmichael, Neil
Hunter, Adam
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Janner, Greville
Pavitt, Laurie


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pendry, Tom


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Pentland, Norman


Cohen, Stanley
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Perry, Ernest G.


Concannon, J. D.
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Conlan, Bernard
John, Brynmor
Prescott, John


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth. C.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Probert, Arthur


Cronin, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rankin, John


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Kaufman, Gerald
Richard, Ivor


Dalyell, Tam
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Kinnock, Neil
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lambie, David
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lamborn, Harry
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lamond, James
Roper, John


Deakins, Eric
Latham, Arthur
Rose, Paul B.


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lawson, George
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Leadbitter, Ted
Rowlands, Ted


Dempsey, James
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Doig, Peter
Leonard, Dick
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Dormand, J. D.
Lestor, Miss Joan
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Driberg, Tom
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Dunn, James A.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sillars, James


Eadie, Alex
Lipton, Marcus
Silverman, Julius


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lomas, Kenneth
Skinner, Dennis


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Ellis, Tom
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Spearing, Nigel


English, Michael
McBride, Neil
Spriggs, Leslie


Evans, Fred
McCartney, Hugh
Steel, David


Ewing, Harry
McElhone, Frank
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Faulds, Andrew
McGuire, Michael
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Strang, Gavin


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mackie, John
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackintosh, John P.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Foot Michael
Maclennan, Robert
Swain, Thomas


Ford, Ben
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Taverne, Dick


Forrester, John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Freeson, Reginald
Marks, Kenneth
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Marsden, F.
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy



Marshall, Dr. Edmund



Garrett, W. E.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Tinn, James


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mayhew, Christopher
Torney, Tom


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Meacher, Michael
Urwin, T. W.


Gourlay, Harry
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Varley, Eric G.


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mendelson, John
Wainwright, Edwin


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mikardo, Ian
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Millan, Bruce
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wallace, George


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Watkins, David


Hamling, William 
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Weitzman, David 




Wellbeloved, James


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Whitehead, Phillip


Harper, Joseph
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Whitlock, William


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Moyle, Roland
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Murray, Ronald King
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hattersley, Roy
Oakes, Gordon



Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Ogden, Eric
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Heffer, Eric S.
O'Halloran, Michael
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hilton, W. S.
O'Malley, Brian
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Horam, John
Oram, Bert
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orbach, Maurice
Woof, Robert


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oswald, Thomas



Huckfield, Leslie
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Padley, Walter
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Ernest Armstrong.


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Palmer, Arthur



Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New Clause 2

Orders of the Day — AMENDMENT OF SECTIONS 1 AND 86 OF ACT OF 1971

(1) Section 1(1) of the Act of 1971 (protected tenancies) shall have effect as if for paragraph (a) there were substituted the following paragraph—
'(a) the rateable value of the dwelling-house on the appropriate day exceeded or, as the case may be, exceeds £200; or'.

(2) Section 86(1) (dwelling-houses to which Part VII of that Act applies) shall have effect as if for the words from 'which has' to the end there were substituted the words 'the rateable value of which on the appropriate day did not or, as the case may be, does not exceed £200'.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the new Clause is to put beyond doubt a possible ambiguity in the provisions of the consolidating Rent (Scotland) Act, 1971, which specify the rateable value limits which apply, either before a tenancy of a dwelling-house can be regarded as being a protected tenancy, or before a dwelling-house can be regarded as one to which Part VII of that Act on furnished lettings applies.
What has happened is that an authority on the Rent Acts has expressed the view that the 1968 consolidation of the Rent Acts of England and Wales has had the effect that if the rateable value of a house subject to a protected tenancy is increased above the relevant rateable limit specified in Section 1 of the 1968 Act the tenancy loses protection.
The wording of the relevant provisions of the Rent Act, 1968, is similar to that of Sections 1(1)(a) and 86 of the Rent (Scotland) Act, 1971. Our view is that if the tenancy comprised lands and heritages, for which a rateable value was shown on the valuation roll on 23rd March, 1965, and that rateable value did not exceed £200, the tenancy would remain one to which Part VII of the 1971 Act applies; alternatively, as the case may be, the tenancy of the dwelling-

house would remain a protected tenancy, even if the rateable value of the dwelling-house is subsequently increased above that limit.
If the contrary opinion, the opposite to our interpretation, were to be held by the courts to be correct, this would mean that the consolidation of the Rent Acts had altered the previous law. That was certainly not intended. I therefore consider that the matter should be put beyond all doubt, and that is the purpose and effect of the new Clause. I am sure that the House would wish to make certain that the correct interpretation was one which the Government hold on this, and I therefore commend the Clause to the House.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Ross: I have no objection to the new Clause but I am surprised that it has come at this time. After we finished with the Committee stage and had decided how to allocate our time, giving two valuable days of timetabled business, the Government slapped down over 100 Amendments and seven new Clauses. One wonders exactly what a Committee stage is for under the present régime of the Scottish Office. I should like to know when the authoritative expert on the Rent Bill discovered the possible dubiety of legal interpretation. Can we be given the time of this so that we can judge whether or not the Government deliberately held this over for a later stage whenthey knew that time was scarce?

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Our intention in putting down the new Clause was that it should not take any time because it was a matter of interpretation which we thought that both sides would wish to make clear. But it was only recently that the Government decided that this should be put beyond doubt. That was since the Committee stage. It may not have been necessary, but we thought that since it would not take much time it would be better if it were done.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New Clause 3

Orders of the Day — AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULE 6 TO ACT OF 1971

Schedule 6 to the Act of 1971 (applications for registration of rents unsupported by certificate of fair rent) shall have effect as if after paragraph 3 there were inserted the following paragraph:—


'3A. Where the rent officer, in carrying out his functions under this Part of this Schedule, inspects a dwelling-house, he shall explain to the tenant or to his spouse, if either is present at the inspection, the procedure upon an application for the registration of a rent under this Part of this Schedule.'.—[Mr. Younger.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I think that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendments (a), in line 2, after 'if', insert:
(a) in paragraphs 1 and 2 for the words 'seven days' there were substituted the words '14 days'.
(c), in line 3, leave out '14 days' and insert '21 days'.
(b) in line 7, at end add
(2) Schedule 12 to the Act of 1971 (applications for registration of rents supported by certificate of fair rent) shall have effect as if in paragraph 7 for the words '7 days' there were substituted the words '14 days'.
and (d).in line 4, leave out '14 days' and insert '21 days'.
and No. 107, in page 38, line 26, leave out Clause 48.

Mr. Younger: I should first say something about the present procedure whereby notices are served on tenants whose landlord has applied for a determination of a fair rent. Under Schedule 6 to the Rent (Scotland) Act, 1971, when the rent officer receives an application from a landlord for the registration of a rent he serves on the tenant a notice informing him of the application and specifying a period of not less than seven days during which representations in writing may be made against the registration.
Where representations are made or the rent officer is not satisfied that the rent specified in the application is a fair rent, he serves on both the landlord and the tenant a notice informing them that he proposes to consider in consultation with them what rent should be registered.
After determining a rent, the rent officer notifies the landlord and the tenant and informs them that if, within 28 days, either party objects in writing, the matter will be referred to a rent assessment committee.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), who has a particular interest in this aspect of the workings of the Rent Acts, raised the question of the way in which the notice is served upon a tenant. He persuaded the Committee to write into the Bill Clause 48, which laid a duty upon the rent officer personally to call upon the tenant as the first intimation that the tenant has that the landlord has asked for determination of a fair rent.
Fully appreciating the importance of my hon. Friend's suggestion, I undertook at that time carefully to consider what improvements could be made to the method of serving notices on tenants, and in particular the proceedings which he had had written into the Bill as Clause 48. The principle of what my hon. Friend is trying to do there is one which I warmly endorse and support—that is, to try to devise the best possible means of seeing not only that the tenant gets the information in a form which he can understand and which enables him to know his rights, but also that someone in authority who understands the law is able to speak personally to that tenant as soon as possible after this news has reached him so as to advise him and give him the fullest information about his rights.
I have carefully considered whether Clause 48 would be practicable and I am very sorry to say that I must advise the House that, desirable though it may be, it would not be practicable to lay an absolute statutory duty on the rent officers that the first notification which any tenant will get is a personal visit upon this point. I will try to explain why.
First, there would be a considerable number of houses and tenants involved—about 30,000 in the first year and a similar number in the second and third years. This would obviously put a considerable amount of work on the shoulders of the rent officers, who, it is common ground between us, are a very hard-working and dedicated body of men and women.
But if the House reflects it will realise that if the duty of the rent officer was to give the first notice by a personal visit this would multiply the work very many times. It does not follow that if a rent officer decides to visit a particular tenant at a particular time the tenant will be in. According to Clause 48, in that case the notice would not have been served.
So the first objection is the sheer impracticability of a rent officer—however many we have, and we intend to increase their number to deal with this work—being able to make sufficient visits to achieve the serving of one notice.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: How does the rent officer legally get access to a house for such an inspection if the tenant or his spouse is not present?

Mr. Younger: That indeed is the problem. That is why I say that it is not practicable for the first notice to be the personal delivery by a rent officer. I will come later to whether it is entirely desirable, but it is not practicable.
Second, Clause 48 applies in terms only to controlled tenants, but it is arguable that their circumstances, though special, are not so different from those of regulated tenants, who first receive a notification of a registration of a fair rent, as to justify applying any new procedure to them alone. Thus, if Clause 48 were, as a matter of equity, extended to regulated tenants the administrative burden would be that much greater.
Third, where the house is occupied by husband and wife, the husband is usually the tenant and he will not normally be available during working hours. Further, since the tenant would, by the nature of this requirement, not be given notice of the visit, it would probably be necessary to make repeated visits to achieve the result.
Last, while it is no doubt desirable that all such news should be personally delivered, I do not believe that this is a

principle that Governments of any complexion have previously felt able to accept as a statutory requirement for the passing of a notice or a particular piece of information to a tenant or in any other system.
It is for those reasons that, although I appreciate and fully support the idea behind this provision, I suggest that, with the best will in the world, it would not be practicable to carry it out in this way.
We now return to new Clause 3, which I hope is a considerable improvement and goes some way, together with the measures that we shall take with it, to meet the matters about which my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart has expressed concern. I am grateful to my hon. Friend not merely for the matters he raised in Committee but for the great amount of consultation and advice he has given to us in the last few weeks on this important matter.
The new Clause is an alternative to Clause 48, and I believe that it will be practicable. It accepts the importance of a verbal explanation of procedures. It lays an obligation upon the rent officer when he inspects the premises, as he does now and will do, to explain the procedure and the right of appeal to the tenant or his wife, if either is present.
It may be argued that the tenant would be left too long in a state of suspense because of the interval between the receipt of the initial letter informing him of the landlord's application and the date of the inspection. I accept that this could be so. To avoid that, we propose to ensure that the visit by the rent officer to inspect the premises and explain the procedures and appeal provisions to the tenant will take place within a week or so of the tenant's receipt of the letter from the rent officer informing him that the landlord has applied for the registration of a rent.
This is a matter for administration and not for writing into Statute, for reasons I outlined earlier. This is an adoption of a procedure now followed in many areas. The initial letter to the tenant is not issued until about seven days before inspection, regardless of the date of the application by the landlord. In this way only a week separates the receipt of the letter by the tenant and the inspection by the rent officer, when the tenant will be


able to have his questions answered by the rent officer, who is qualified to give advice.

Mr. William Baxter: I presume that the notification to the tenant will be by registered letter.

Mr. Younger: I understand that it is not normally by registered letter. However, if the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter) feels that that is important, I am prepared to look into using either a registered letter or recorded delivery. Without commitment, I will be glad to look into that possibility.

Mr. Baxter: There could be considerable argument whether a letter was received. While I agree with the Clause, I think that notification should be sent by a registered or recorded delivery.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, which I will consider as sympathetically as I can.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: Would the Under-Secretary kindly remove one small doubt in my mind? If the rent officer calling to inspect a dwelling house finds neither the tenant nor his spouse present but a small child, is he empowered to inspect the premises? If he is so empowered, how would he make the necessary explanations to the tenant or his spouse?

Mr. Younger: This is a matter which is normally dealt with administratively. It is the normal practice of rent officers when they call to inspect a house not to do so unless the tenant, his spouse, or some other responsible person is there to discuss the matter.
The Clause proposes that if the tenant or spouse is present the rent officer will be obliged to explain the provisions, give any advice, or answer any questions. I assure the House that it will be the intention in operating this procedure that the rent officers will make every effort to ensure that somebody is present who can ask questions or receive advice.
It would not be possible or practicable to insist that this must always happen. There are numerous occasions when it would not be possible. We must accept that it would be possible for a tenant

to ensure that he was never in. The procedure could be flouted in that way

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I revert to what was said about recorded delivery and the argument about seven, 14, 21 days and so on, which takes in the matter raised by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur). It is against the law of trespass, as I understand it, for a rent officer to enter a house without the consent of the tenant, spouse, or some responsible person acting for the tenant. If that is true, the hon. Gentleman's concern is valid and ties up with the other difficulties about notice The tenant should know that his house is being inspected. If he knows that, he is able to take advantage of the administrative provisions and have matters explained to him.
I ask the Under-Secretary to confirm that no rent officer can inspect a house without having the direct consent of the tenant or his spouse.

Mr. Younger: To inspect the interior of a house, one has to be admitted to the house. A rent officer would not accept admission by a small child who was not empowered to permit entry. Of course, none of us would approve of leaving a small child alone in a house.
The tenant is informed by the terms of the original letter that his landlord has applied for registration of a fair rent He is informed that the rent officer proposes to call on a particular date and he is invited to state if that is not convenient.
Recently I have done a lot of work trying to improve the form of the letter, and I should be happy to discuss this further if hon. Members wish. A tenant is told at what time the rent officer proposes to call. He is given an opportunity to say whether it is not convenient. He may get in touch with the rent officer, whose address and telephone number are on the letter. In the last resort—I know that this is not what the hon. Gentleman is referring to particularly—there are instances when nobody can be found in, however long one tries. This may or may not be deliberate, but in those circumstances the rent officer has to inspect the premises externally and make his best determination of a fair rent. The normal appeal procedures can no doubt permit the tenant to make representations


if for good reasons he has not been able to be present.
Although I emphasise that that sort of situation is on the whole the exception rather than the rule, one has to allow for it administratively. I am sure that in most cases after these changes in the administration are put into effect the procedure will be that the tenant will receive a letter stating that a fair rent is being applied for, and that a rent officer will call, specifying that date and giving the tenant an opportunity to say that it is not convenient. The rent officer will then call, and he will be obliged, assuming the tenant or spouse is present, to answer questions and give any advice he reasonably can about the procedure and so on. Therefore, the normal custom with which we are all familiar under the Rent Acts will continue.
I hope that with that general explanation hon. Members will agree that the Clause goes a considerable part of the way to meeting the intention behind Clause 48, which was passed in Committee, but which, for the reasons I have given, I cannot advise the House to retain.

Mr. Baxter: I am glad that the Under-secretary has proposed the new Clause. Without it, there would be considerable cost to the great mass of the taxpayers, as an individual would have had to inspect all the houses involved, or deliver a letter in the first instance if not admitted to inspect the house. It was bad judgment to have Clause 48 in this form, and I am glad that the Under-Secretary has reconsidered the matter.
There is a need to indicate the issue clearly by registered or recorded delivery to the tenant. But there is also a responsibility upon the tenant to see that the rent officer gets the opportunity to examine the house internally. Surely it is in the tenant's interest that the rent officer should be able to call to assess a fair and reasonable value of the property.
It would be impossible to give a fair and reasonable valuation of the property for rent purposes looking only at the external fabric. There is much about the building which could not be seen from the outside, such as dampness. It is surely in the best interests of the tenant, who may suffer a considerable rent increase, to welcome the rent officer into

his house. I am glad that the Under-secretary has introduced this new Clause.
We are not sufficiently mindful of the great mass of people we employ, sometimes needlessly in my opinion, doing work that other people are being paid to do. The delivery of letters or notifications to tenants of a possible rent increase is not the duty of a highly-paid rent officer. I am glad that some regard is had to the ordinary taxpayer who at the end of the day will have to pay for a considerable number of rent officers. This is one of the great problems with new legislation; it adds to the bureaucracy that is almost overwhelming and swamping this country. This is a little step towards rectifying that particular wrong.

Mr. Edward Taylor: I am sorry that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter) should have said some unkind things about Clause 48 after the kind things the Under-Secretary said. I know that the hon. Gentleman will have studied the OFFICIAL REPORT of our Committee in detail—

Mr. Baxter: I have not, because it would be a sheer waste of time studying the reports of some of the Scottish Grand Committees.

Mr. Taylor: If the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to study the reports, or if he had heard the proceedings, he would know that, despite the rather nasty things he has said about the Clause, every single one of his colleagues on the Committee gave their full-hearted consent to the Clause by voting for it. My hon. Friend has said that this Clause is not practical but he accepts the spirit of it and that is why he has introduced his own new Clause. I am extremely grateful for all the time and trouble he has taken to look into the problem with which the Clause dealt to deal with the situation which I put to the Committee.
I would be glad to accept my hon. Friend's new Clause, subject to three clear assurances from him. First of all, we must remember in dealing with the kind of tenant who will receive this notice that we are dealing almost exclusively with very elderly people who have been living in the same house for 20, 30 or 40 years. These are the kinds of people who are on controlled rents, very low ones, and there are few cases in Scotland of people


who have had a controlled tenancy given to them since the Second World War. It is generally accepted that these people will be over 70 years of age. In other words, they will be the kind of people who get confused by official forms, the kind of people who are not aware of their rights, who are terrified when they get a notice through the post.
I put forward my proposal because some of my constituents, and this is true of other constituencies I am sure, have been receiving notices of decontrol as a result of the 1969 Act. We all know from seeing this Measure in action that it causes many old people a great deal of alarm when they receive the notices. The first assurance I want is that people will be told what is happening. At present a tenant who has been living for 30 years in a house with a rent only marginally adjusted in 1954 can suddenly receive a letter through the post saying two things. First, it will tell him that the landlord has applied for a fair rent, and, secondly, that the tenant has a right of appeal within seven days. Attached to that is a photocopy of a note giving the present rent and the rent for which the landlord has applied.
In my surgery on Saturday—this is one of many examples—a lady called to see me who had received one of these notices. This simply informed her that, after she had lived for 30 years in a house for the very low rent of £22, the landlord had applied for the rent to be increased to £200. This is a substantial increase. This lady had gone through a week of sleepless nights wondering how on earth she would suddenly be able to pay £200 a year after paying £22. This lady was receiving supplementary benefit, and the simple answer which any Member of Parliament or social worker could have given her is that if a person is receiving supplementary benefit it is a 100 to 1 chance that the full amount of the increase in the rent will be paid by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. Any hon. Member, lawyer, accountant or social worker could have told the lady this. All she had received was a note saying that the landlord had asked for her rent to be increased from £22 to £200 and that she could make representations within seven days.
This is not good enough. Many hundreds of people have been faced with this situation. Unless they can be told their rights at the time when they receive the notice many elderly people will go through misery, alarm and sleepless nights. Something must be done.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that he is implicitly making a criticism of the form in which so many of these notices are written? Would he not agree that if local authorities particularly, and other public authorities, took more time to explain things in simple basic language, rather than legalistic jargon, there would be less worry?

Mr. Taylor: I absolutely agree. The hon. Gentleman is spot on, and that is the point I want to make. My hon. Friend has said that he cannot send a rent officer to every home to hand in a note or explain what is happening. What I want first is an assurance that there will be a major change in the letter which people get when they first receive notice. At present all they are told is that the landlord has asked for an increase and there are seven days in which to appeal. I would like the letter to tell people five things.
First of all, people should be told that the landlord's proposed figure is not the figure to which the rent will necessarily be raised and that it is the rent officer who decides what the rent will be. The second thing the tenant should be told is that any increase will be phased over a period of years and will not come into effect immediately. Thirdly, people should be told that those who are on supplementary benefit or who may qualify for supplementary benefit will probably, although not certainly, get most or all of the increase paid by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. The fourth thing, which will, I am sure, be done, is that they should be told about the new scheme of rent allowances. The last thing which I hope they will be told, if not in the letter then at least by the rent officer, is that the rent assessment committees can increase the rent officer's figure as well as decrease it.
I know that many of my constituents have been told by the rent officer "Your rent will be £50 or £100; you have a right of appeal". They go along to the rent


assessment committee thinking that they will get a reduction, and the rent has been increased. The only experience these people have had is mainly going to a rates committee. When a person appeals against his rates it is most unusual for them to be increased. Usually there is no reduction at all, or a very small one. What alarms many of these people is that they go along to the rent assessment committees saying that £50 is too high and the rent assessment committee says "You will pay £70". I am not saying that the rent assessment committees always increase the figures; sometimes they reduce them, sometimes they increase them.
I think it is clear from my experience although not necessarily from all of Scotland, that the rent assessment committee fixes rents higher than the rent officers. This has been my experience, although I know that some figures produced by the Scottish Office show that this is not necessarily the case. It is my experience. Even if it was not the general case, if it happened in only two or three or four cases, people should be told that if they go to the rent assessment committees on appeal the figures can be increased.
5.30 p.m.
These are the things that people should be told in the first letter. I would like to see my hon. Friend agreeing, before we pass from this new Clause, that instead of a simple note telling them nothing apart from the fact that the rent is going up they should be told what are their rights; they should be told about the phasing of the increase, supplementary benefit and rent allowances.
The second assurance which I hope will be given is that the rent officer will go to the house shortly after the notice is received. I appreciate it may not be possible to say within six, seven or eight days but he should call shortly afterwards. On this matter of giving advice, even if he cannot give full details of supplementary benefit he should at least carry with him when he calls at the house the address of the nearest supplementary benefits office. We know that some people who may not qualify for supplementary benefit at present may, if they have their rent increased by £1 or £2, be entitled to such benefit.
Although it would be wrong to expect the rent officer to be an encyclopædia of social work procedure and supplementary

benefits he should be able to tell the person "I think it will be worth while calling round to the local office dealing with supplementary benefit. Here is the telephone number and the address".
The next assurance I want is about the Amendment I have tabled to the new Clause, namely, to change the seven-day appeal figure to 14 days. This is not desperately important, because those of us who have dealt with cases like this know that if someone fails to appeal within seven days the rent officers will usually accept late appeals. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen who have written on behalf of tenants have been told that the rent officers will accept a late appeal. Some people may have missed the seven days because they were on holiday or staying with relatives and will think that it is not worth their while appealing late so not do so. This is not desperately important because even if they do not appeal the rent officer will assess the rent and they will not lose their rights. However, 14 days is a more reasonable figure if we are to have a figure at all.
Could the Government accept the enormous expense of giving everyone who gets one of these notices an addressed and prepaid envelope to send in their appeal if they so wish? We are dealing with many elderly people and we know that they may not go to the post office except for one occasion a week. It is quite a job to get an envelope and a stamp. Why not make it a little bit easier to send this appeal to the rent officer?
I thank my hon. Friend sincerely for the care and trouble he has taken in accepting the spirit of the Clause, but I do not think that the spirit can be said to have been truly accepted if people are still to receive this same letter, even if it is one or two days before the rent officer calls.
If the first notice tenants receive after living for 30 or 40 years on a low rent is the kind of letter which has been sent out since the 1969 Act it will be no good. I am sure that this was done with the best of intentions but the letter is not adequate. I do not want people to receive a form in official language telling them nothing about their rights, just saying "Your rent is going up". I want a proper letter telling people in simple and easily understood language that an application has been made to


increase their rent, that it will not necessarily go up to the figure stated, that the rent officer decides, and that even if he decides in favour of an increase a person can obtain rent allowances and supplementary benefit. Otherwise the misery which many people have suffered since we introduced this kind of decontrol or rent regulation will continue.
I am not arguing against the principle; there is plenty of provision for those in need. The rent allowance scheme is excellent, and the Supplementary Benefits Commission helps people in need. But the tenants need to be told all these things at the time, and I hope that myhon. Friend will agree with me.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) has said. But he omitted one important point from the list of things for which he asked the Government. This is that the tenant should also be told on receipt of the notice that there is no question of his being evicted. It is this aspect which also causes alarm to so many tenants. They get a lawyer's letter—still a famous phrase in Scotland. Some of the landlords even employ old-fashioned eviction notices, accompanied by another letter saying "Please disregard this formal letter and come and see me at such and such a time". The panic which this palaver throws many tenants into is quite something.
The reaction when tenants are told in addition that they only have seven days to sort all these things out raises the question whether the 1969 Act was wise in specifying a seven-day period. I shall not go into the variations of how the seven days are employed. If the argument applies to one party, in all equity it should apply to all. I shall not go into all the permutations of how the landlord, the rent officer and the tenant are affected. I will stick to the simple argument whether seven days is a fair period for all concerned. In my opinion, in the light of experience of the working of the Act, the period is not long enough.
In my two Amendments (c) and (d) I suggest either 14 days or 21 days. During the Committee stage of the 1969 Act I defended the proposition of a seven-day period as being sensible. The then

Opposition—I do not recall whether the hon. Member for Cathcart was one of them—suggested 21 days but withdrew that proposition on my assurance. I feel it only right that I should now seek to restore the balance and argue for a 21-day period myself. I am the first to admit that a 14-day period might be the preference but I am certainly sure that seven days is not long enough. We are discussing this in a non-partisan atmosphere. We are really arguing administrative procedure, and I hope, therefore, that the Government will admit that seven days is too short a period. They may favour a 14-day period but I would like to see a 21-day period.
We must think of all the tenant has to do. First, of course, he has to sort out his initial reaction to the notice. I hope that the Government will take seriously the criticisms made by my hon. Friends and by the hon. Member for Cathcart. I have no doubt there are also a large number of letters in the Scottish Office pointing out ways to improve the mechanism. Hon. Members may regard the lengthening of the period as merely a palliative, and, of course, that is all it is. But it still remains a palliative. I hope that we shall take into account the impact of what is being done. It is important that tenants should be aware that the rent proposed is not necessarily the rent which will be agreed. That is not often understood. Tenants often believe that if the landlord claims a certain rent, that will be the rent. It must be made clear at the very beginning that the claim of the landlord or, indeed, of the rent officer will not necessarily be considered valid.
I agree also about phasing. I hope we shall hear more about this from the Under-Secretary of State. I do not think that people are quite so sure that phasing will be as keenly kept to as it was before. I have no reason in statute to doubt this, but is the Under-Secretary of State fully aware of what people are concerned about in phasing? Supplementary benefit and rent allowances speak for themselves.
The hon. Member for Cathcart seemed to imply that in all cases—and in this he is supported by some of my hon. Friends—rent assessment committees put rents up wherever there is an appeal either by the tenant or by the rent officer


I do not agree. The last breakdown I saw was for 1969. This showed that about one-third of the rents went up on appeal, one-third went down and the remaining one-third remained the same. That survey was done throughout Scotland and may not necessarily apply, for example, to Paisley, where the opposite of that analysis may be true, with most of the rents going up. I do not deny that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) may be right in that. In Greenock a marginal majority went up. In Glasgow it is suggested that if anything more rents went down than went up. I am, of course, talking about areas with high concentrations of low-rated tenements and so on. It is difficult to be precise.
There is no doubt that public confidence in rent assessment committees is in jeopardy, and it is right that the Government should be looking at the situation. As we have argued in Committee upstairs, and will continue to argue, there should be a fourth member of the rent assessment committee representing the local authority, the community interest. Some may say that we should dismiss one of the valuer members or one of the lawyer members of the three-man committee, and there is a lot of sense in arguing for that. But whether it be the dismissal of one of the present members and his replacement by a local authority representative, or whether we add a local authority representative to the present three, we have to do one or the other. Either way, I am certain that people would more readily accept the appeals system to rent assessment committees than is at present the case.
I have deployed my argument in favour of my two Amendments and I have also supported in a mild way Amendment (a), standing in the name of the hon. Member for Cathcart and myname. I want now to comment on new Clause 3 and also on Clause 48. The Government seek to delete Clause 48. They wish to deny us our victory in Committee on Clause 48. They have rejected new Clause 4, standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). Having done that, they are now attempting to deny us the only other victory we had in Committee—the insertion of Clause 48.

It is bad in principle that the Government, having lost two battles in Committee, should seek to reverse the decisions on Report when not all that much is at stake.

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman would not wish to be unfair, least of all to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown), who moved an Amendment which was accepted in Committee.

Dr. Mabon: That was an obvious and good Amendment which any sensible Minister would have accepted without a debate. I regard that not as a victory but as an inevitable consequence of discussion in Committee. But the two matters we are discussing today were resisted in Committee and the Government tried to command a majority to support them until they found that they did not have a majority. That is why we are having these two debates. New Clause 3 is less good than Clause 48, which was our victory and that of the hon. Member for Cathcart. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not kill his "child" at this early stage by deserting Clause 48 in favour of new Clause 3.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman stop trying to kid around? The important thing is to get something done for the tenants whom he left unprotected in his 1969 Act. Everything I have been trying to do is to put right omissions from the 1969 Act. The most sensible thing he could do would be to agree with me and try to persuade the Government not just to have new Clause 3 but in addition to give the assurances I am asking for.

5.45 p.m.

Dr. Mabon: Of course. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is so excited, because I am hoping to carry him with me into the Lobby. At present it looks as if I shall literally have to carry him into the Lobby. In a non-partisan way, I am trying to persuade him not to be tricked, if that is not too serious an allegation, by the Under-Secretary of State, who is very good at using honeyed words and at trying to skip round propositions and get away with things.
There are two serious defects in new Clause 3 compared with Clause 48, which


is the hon. Member for Cathcart's own. In the first place, new Clause 3 says:
Where the rent officer, in carrying out his functions…inspects a dwellinghouse…".
It follows that he does not have to inspect every dwelling house. That wording means "where he inspects a house", and not that he will inspect every house. Clause 48, on the contrary, says:
As from the date of commencement of Part V of this Act, any notices issued by the rent officer to tenants of dwelling-houses, the tenancies of which are controlled…shall require to be delivered personally to the tenant by the rent officer, or by a suitably qualified person appointed by him….
There is no getting away from that. The rent officer or someone appointed by him has to go to every dwelling house.
I submit that under new Clause 3 one can get away from that situation. The rent officer does not have to appear in every case. Surely that defeats the whole point of the hon. Gentleman's proposition, which was that he wanted a personal visit by the rent officer for every tenant. He made very good speeches about it in Committee and persuaded us and one of his hon. Friends to follow him. The result was that the Committee carried his Amendment. Having won the day, why should we now give it away? Clause 48 in the first place is better because it ensures that in every case a visit will be paid. New Clause 3 does not specify that. I do not have to ask a lawyer, let alone a Philadelphia lawyer, to explain the meaning of new Clause 3. It allows of certain circumstances where houses are not inspected.
Secondly, under Clause 48 there is no doubt that the tenant has to be interviewed. It is as tight as that. The tenant must be interviewed. I accept the Under-secretary of State's criticism that there are some tenants who would avoid the attempt to interview them, but this is like receiving a summons or a subpœna or any of these things which one wants to avoid if one is a Micawberlike rascal not wanting to face the consequences of incredibility. But that is a highly unusual circumstance and can easily be dealt with by administrative methods. We cannot legislate for the tiny minority. We have to legislate for the vast majority who need the protection embodied in Clause 48. Clause 48 makes no bones about it—everyone is to be interviewed.
I appeal to the hon. Member for Cathcart, whom I want on my side here. New Clause 3 leaves the situation open as to whether or not the tenant or his spouse is ever seen, is ever acquainted with the nature of the inspection and over what happens when the rent officer arrives. I do not like the idea of the rent officer trying to make a judgment from the outside of the house. If, under the provisions of the Act, repairs or improvements have been done by the tenant, that will be disallowed in the rent officer's assessment of the rent in such cases. How does he know who has installed things such as a new sink or has made repairs or improvements without the tenant or the spouse being present?
Clause 48 was a well-deserved victory of the tenants, and it should not be given away now in exchange for a ragbag like new Clause 3. I have presented two serious defects in new Clause 3, and unless the Under-Secretary of State is able to promise that he will redraft new Clause 3 and improve it we should be wiser to leave Clause 48 as it is.

Mr. MacArthur: The whole House will be very grateful to myhon. Friend the Under-Secretary for meeting so well the spirit of the Clause which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) in Committee. I must say that I am very glad indeed on consideration that this new Clause has been introduced. I appreciate what my hon. Friend said this afternoon, that it would have been impracticable to operate the other Clause as it stands. I think that all of us will be greatly influenced by the generous way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart accepted the way in which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, in the new proposal before us now, has met the spirit of the existing Clause.
I have only one major regret so far, and that is to learn from the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter) that he has not read the debate in Committee. I do urge him, if I may with the greatest respect, to spend—well, it will take some weeks—the next weeks reading through these two slim-volumes, because if he does that he will learn very much more about the Bill and will be able to put out of his mind the vicious propaganda which has been poured into it by his hon. Friends. One of my great regrets throughout the


proceedings was at the way the Bill was distorted for party ends in the municipal elections campaign in Scotland. If the hon. Member would read the excellent arguments put forward by my hon. Friend who was in charge of the Bill and managed it so well for the Government he would see things in better perspective and would understand the purpose of the Bill very much more clearly.

Mr. Baxter: Do I understand that the hon. Member is putting up an argument against what I said in favour of the new Clause? I was supporting—I thought I made it abundantly clear—the new Clause which the Under-Secretary was suggesting, and I was not in favour of this great victory achieved in Committee. As to the hon. Member's argument that I would add to my understanding of the Bill if I were to read the OFFICIAL REPORT in these two enlarged volumes, I think that that would rather add to my understanding of the long-windedness of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, although I really do not have to read these reports to learn about that.

Mr. MacArthur: I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention because it most effectively underlines the point I was making, and if he were to read the speeches made by my hon. Friend in Committee he would be able to help us in our attempt to present this Bill properly to the people of Scotland and not in the distorted way encouraged by the propaganda poured out by the hon. Member's hon. Friends in Committee on the Bill.
I was concerned to hear the doubts raised by the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) just now. Certainly Clause 48 provides that there should be a call on every single householder affected in this way, and the hon. Member has raised doubt now whether that would be the effect of the new Clause presented by the Government. Unfortunately I do not have the 1971 Act beside me, as I should have, but my recollection is that it is the present procedure that every house is called upon. I hope that my hon. Friend will indicate whether or not that is so, but if it is I think that the whole of the argument of the hon. Member for Greenock falls, and I hope that he will join with me in applauding both my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart and my

hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in removing a grave defect in the Act of 1969 passed by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. and right hon. Friends.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I do not want to be unfair to the hon. Member, but he is trying to dismiss an argument of mine by reference to a Section in the Housing Act, 1969, although he does not have the Act with him. This is not really fair. He must direct my attention to that Section which says that the rent officer will in every case inspect the property internally and externally. May I have the reference?

Mr. MacArthur: The Minister will be replying to the debate in a moment and he will reply to the hon. Gentleman. I am simply making the comment that my recollection, for what it is worth, is that it is present procedure and that the hon. Gentleman's argument is a false one.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Will my hon. Friend accept from me that I know of no case in Glasgow of a controlled tenancy decontrolled under the Act in which the house has not been inspected by the rent officer. It would be very interesting to hear from the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), with his vast experience, if he could quote one instance of one house decontrolled under his Act not inspected by a rent officer.

Mr. MacArthur: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming that my recollection is correct and that the hon. Gentleman's argument is wrong.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart asked for certain assurances about the words which there would be in the letter to be delivered to a tenant affected in this way. He reminded us, quite rightly, that the majority of these tenants are likely to be elderly people. It is not only the content of the letter which concerns me but the way in which a letter is expressed—the words which are used, the way the letter looks. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to blaze a new trail in his composition of the letter, because I am very concerned sometimes about the nature of official communications which are addressed to elderly people.
I do not want to stray too far from this matter but I recall a form which was specifically designed for people over 70


affected by selective employment tax repayments. This was specifically directed to people over 70, and it informed them of their rights under the Act; but it was one of the most frightening pieces of official paper which anyone over 70 could look at, and it ended with a line of heavy-face type of words of warning that any false declaration would render them liable to fine or imprisonment or both. This, to my knowledge, frightened one elderly lady away from seeking her rights to which she was entitled under that Act. There have been other communications I have seen in the last two weeks addressed to people who are in a state of some worry.
I hope that my hon. Friend will give most sympathetic consideration to the way in which the letter will be worded, bearing in mind that the very delivery of a recorded delivery letter to an elderly person is itself a quite jolting experience, and that if the information in the letter is that there is likely to be an increase in the rent that will be something which will cause very great worry indeed. I hope my hon. Friend will consider the content of the letter and the words which it uses, and give the most sympathetic consideration to the way in which it is expressed and to the general appearance of the letter, which otherwise will cause profound shock to those receiving it.

Mr. John Robertson: There are two aspects which seem to have been missed. When the Under-Secretary was addressing the Committee he seemed to indicate that one of the functions of the rent officer is to make an assessment whether or not the rent asked for by the landlord was correct or incorrect. Surely, this would demand inspection; surely it presupposes inspection; the rent officer cannot make a judgment except he makes an inspection. I think that this is fundamental. It means that in every case there has to be a visit by the rent officer to the house, or by someone from the rent officer's office.
The argument is whether or not the rent officer in visiting should hand the notice to the tenant or whether he should visit the tenant following giving the notice. To me that does not seem important—not all that important—if the notice is a reasonable one and can be understood. If the notice should not operate till the rent officer has visited to make

his inspection, then whether the time were seven days following that or 14 days really would not matter. That would solve the difficulty with which neither Clause 48 nor the proposed new Clause deals.
Perhaps there could be included on the form words saying "I intend to appeal" or "I do not intend to appeal" so that the recipient could strike out what is not applicable. This would save a lot of administrative trouble.
6.0 p.m.
Although my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) said that information was not available from the Scottish Office, a lot can be obtained if one is persistent. I have a list of 50 cases which were referred to rent assessment tribunals. In three of the 50 the rent assessment committee agreed with the rent officer, but in only one case was there a reduction. In every other there was an increase, and in most cases the increase was substantial.
Consider what happened in Paisley in this context. For 12 houses in one street the rent assessment officer suggested a rent of £100. The rent assessment committee fixed the rent at £210. Even more amusing is what happened. For No. 6 South Park Road, comprising ground floor, three rooms and kitchen, the rent assessment committee fixed the rent at £210. For the same type of house but modernised, by the tenant, with new kitchen sink, new fireplace, rewired and many other improvements, the rent assessment committee fixed the rent at £210, simply because the Chairman of the Paisley and District Factors Association asked for £210 and refused to take less.
All this talk about fair rent tribunals is a lot of nonsense. The system must be changed, and it must be made obvious to people who receive notices precisely how they are affected. I accept what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) said about the importance of people not being placed in fear and trembling because they cannot understand what is happening.
The whole matter could be settled without difficulty. A visit by the rent officer should be virtually obligatory. If the notice required under the previous legislation had been operative only from the date of the visit of the officer, that would have


met the whole position. That is the case today, and it is obvious that what the Government propose could be achieved administratively on the basis of an instruction from the Scottish Office and without the need for legislation.

Mr. Younger: Hon. Members on both sides will agree that on this highly controversial Bill we have succeeded this afternoon in having an interesting, useful and helpful debate on the topic under discussion.

Mr. Norman Buchan: No.

Mr. Younger: If the hon. Gentleman had been in his place throughout the debate he would agree with me.
This is a highly serious subject which can affect people greatly, and it is right that we should discuss all these issues. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) for outlining the main problems which face any person whose landlord asks for the determination of a fair rent. There then arises the whole question whether that request is justified.
It is essential that we have the closest discussion and examination of how these matters affect the people concerned and what it means when they receive a piece of paper saying that certain things have been requested and certain procedures are being followed. This debate has been valuable for these reasons.
The whole procedure which we are discussing has been with us in its essentials for six or seven years. This is, therefore, an appropriate time to look at it again; and I was grateful to the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) for frankly saying that there were ways in which he felt that the legislation for which he had been in part responsible needed modification.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart made a number of extremely constructive suggestions about the form of the letter. The hon. Member for Greenock also made some important proposals. I think I can give my hon. Friend the assurances he seeks on most of the points which he thinks should be made clear in the letter. He asked for it to be made clear that the landlord's figure would not necessarily be the rent

that the tenant would eventually have to pay. It is my intention that the new letter which the rent officers will send out will contain that information.
My hon. Friend then asked that it should be made clear that any increase would be phased. I will consider that suggestion sympathetically, and I see no reason why that should not be stated in the letter. He next asked that it should be clearly stated that the recipient, the tenant, may be liable to help through supplementary benefit and that if he or she is in receipt of supplementary benefit, that benefit may be increased to cope with the increased rent. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that that, too, I intend definitely to include in the new letter which tenants will receive.
My hon. Friend then asked that we should make it clear in the letter that the rent allowance scheme is available to those with incomes which make it difficult for them to afford the rent. I can give him that assurance also; that information will be in the letter.
My hon. Friend next suggested that we make it clear in the letter that the rent assessment committee would, after the determination of the fair rent, decide, if it was the wish of the tenant, whether the rent was right.

Mr. John Robertson: Will it also be made clear in the letter that if the landlord does not accept what the rent officer says, the tenant can appeal? More often than not it is the landlord who appeals.

Mr. Younger: It is my intention that the letter should make it clear to all concerned precisely what are the functions of the rent assessment committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart suggested that it should be normal practice for the notice to be accompanied by a stamped addressed envelope to enable tenants to reply. The hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) thought it would be useful to build in a form of words for replying to whether one objected to the rent. I will consider these points, but hon. Member will appreciate my desire not to have the letter too long, which would make it difficult to understand, especially for old people.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Perhaps as important as the actual contents of the letter is the language in which it is couched.


We must find some way of conveying the intent of our law in simple basic English that ordinary people can understand.

Mr. Younger: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that I shall not irritate the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) when I say that I will try to see that the new letter is couched not in legalistic language but in plain English which people can understand.
I hope I have said enough to show that many of the suggestions which hon. Members have made will be implemented and contained in the new letter. I will look at the other suggestions to see whether they can be included, and I will do my best to ensure that it is couched in ordinary English. If we can achieve all these things, then today's debate will have proved useful because it will be of help to those who receive these notices.

Mr. Edward Taylor: When my hon. Friend has completed the drafting of the proposed letter—and I am grateful for what he has said about its simple language—would he be willing to send copies of it to several Scottish Members?

Mr. Younger: I should certainly be glad to send a copy to any hon. Member who would like to see one. [HON. MEMBERS: "All Members."] I should be delighted to send copies to all hon. Members—without the necessary spaces filled in, because I am sure that hon. Members would not wish to have their rents increased unless they have to.
My hon. Friend also asked for two other assurances. He asked, first, whether I could assure him that the rent officer will call shortly after the letter is received. I give him the assurance that I intend it to be arranged from now on, administratively, that the letter will be sent out in such a way that it is planned, when it is sent, that the rent officer's visit will be within seven days. This is the practice in many areas now, and I intend to see that, so far as is administratively possible, it is always done in future.
My hon. Friend asked, secondly, whether it could be made quite clear that the rent officer, when making his call, would have such information as the

address of the supplementary benefits officer for the area or the Supplementary Benefits Commission's offices in the area so that he could—although obviously he could not give detailed advice about supplementary benefit, which is not his particular task—be armed with the necessary information to enable him to advise people as to where to go to obtain that advice.
Finally, my hon. Friend asked about his Amendments, which we are now discussing, which suggest that we should increase the period of time that the tenant gets to register his objection to the rent from seven days to 14 days. The hon. Member for Greenock referred to his Amendment, which would have increased this period to 21 days. I was very interested in the comment of the hon. Member for Greenock that he had originally felt that seven days was a reasonable amount of time and that he had resisted a suggestion to raise it to 21 days, but that though he now felt that 14 days would be reasonable he had tabled an Amendment for 21 days.
I was very impressed with the argument put forward by the hon. Member and by my hon. Friend for increasing this period. I would, therefore, suggest that the House, if it thinks fit, should agree with my hon. Friend's Amendment to increase the period from seven days to 14 days.
I should make it clear that, as my hon. Friend mentioned, if a tenant does not object to the rent suggested—whether within seven, 14 or 21 days—it does not mean that his fair rent will turn out any different at the end of the day. He does not have to object in order to get the landlord's suggested rent discarded by the rent officer. Whether or not the tenant objects, the rent officer is obliged to assess the fair rent to the best of his ability.
Finally, we had much discussion about the question whether the rent officer must always visit the house, how he gets there, whether he has to inspect the interior of the house, and in what circumstances he should gain access to it. As far as my information goes, it is virtually always the case that where a fair rent is being assessed an inspection takes place. I cannot say that it takes place absolutely always, because there


is always the possibility of its being impossible in a very small number of cases. But the hon. Member for Greenock will, perhaps, accept that if there were a statutory requirement that nothing could happen until an inspection took place it would then be very easy for anyone to prevent anything ever happening, and then to prevent his rent ever being increased.

Mr. David Lambie: Hear, hear.

Mr. Younger: The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) would think that this was an admirable provision, but the House as a whole would not consider it right.
Clearly, we must expect an inspection to occur in every case except that very small number where for some extraordinary reason it is not possible. But it is not practicable to write in an absolute statutory requirement because it would then be possible to avoid these provisions by the tenant refusing anyone access to the house to inspect it. I hope that the House will accept that our intentions are that there should always be an inspection.
The hon. Member for Paisley and my hon. Friend asked about rent assessment committees and what their practice has been. The hon. Member for Paisley, with his experience in mind, believes that such committees always raise rents. I would not quarrel with his detailed points, because we should have to go into them one by one. But there are many cases where rent assessment committees, and, indeed, rent officers, have fixed rents very much lower than those asked for by the landlord, and lower than they have been previously. I shall not detain the House with it, but I have a list of examples equally as long as that which the hon. Member was brandishing a few minutes ago, examples where rents have been reduced as well as increased.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. John Robertson: Why does not the Secretary of State publish the lists, or a sample of Scottish cases, to let us know so that we may compare them with those in other parts of the country? That would be an easy, simple thing to do.

Mr. Younger: I am certain that it would not be the wish of anyone that

we should publish details of individuals' rents. [Interruption.] With respect, no one, particularly tenants, would like that; but there is no secret about general figures and about their trends. If it is of any interest—and these are only figures which I have been able to obtain during the time of this debate—the figures in 1971 were that in 25 per cent. of the cases there was no alteration by the rent assessment committee of the rent fixed by the rent officer. In 34 per cent. of cases the decisions of the rent assessment committee increased the rent suggested by the rent officer. That is the case which the hon. Member for Paisley has been outlining. In 41 per cent. of cases the rent was reduced by the rent assessment committee. So it is not true that the rent assessment committee can only raise rents, although I appreciate that to those who find it happening to them it must seem to be so. But a slight majority, nevertheless a majority, of rent assessment committees reduce rents rather than increase them.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Would my hon. Friend accept that many tenants who receive the notice and get the rent officer's figure are not even aware of the fact that the rent assesment committee can increase that figure, whether in 34 per cent. or 10 per cent. of cases? Will he ensure that rent officers make it clear during the visit that the rent assessment committee can increase the figure as well as reduce it?

Mr. Younger: Yes, I have noted that point. It is one of the things which I shall consider very carefully in the instructions we give to rent officers.
The hon. Member for Greenock referred several times to the question of inspection. I ought to put him right about one thing, because there was some discussion across the Floor of the House about it. It is correct that the implication in new Clause 3 is that the rent officer does not have to inspect the house. But there is no statutory duty to do so at present under the 1971 consolidation Act. Nor was there under the 1965 Act any statutory duty that a rent officer must inspect the house. But, as I have said, the practice is that rent officers do inspect every house, and this has been judicially approved in legal actions of one sort or another.
I hope that with those comments, which I have made as briefly as possible although at greater length than I had intended, the House will accept that new Clause 3 is desirable and is a Clause to which the House ought to agree. I hope that the House will also accept my hon. Friend's Amendments to increase from seven days to 14 days the period in which objections can be made.

Mr. Ross: The Under-Secretary has been very fair about this matter, and that justifies the debate and the decision we took in Committee. To that extent I disagree with the hon. Gentleman and with the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur). After all, the speech that he made was a fairly poor showing, bearing in mind that he voted against putting what is now Clause 48 into the Bill. It was right that the Government should do it. When they did it we said to the Under-Secretary, in pressing this upon him, that if he did not like the wording he could change it.
The Under-Secretary has fulfilled his pledge but he must go further. I am glad that he changed the seven days to 14. The hon. Gentleman could have got away with reading what the Bill says, which is
not less than seven days".
Under Section 46 of the 1971 Act he has the power of regulation in relation to all these procedures. The hon. Gentleman could have assured us that he would use those regulations and much of the debate would have been unnecessary.
The Under-Secretary says that the first letter that goes out will suggest that a visit should take place within seven days. Obviously a person will wait until the first representation is made. Unless that is changed from seven to 14 days, because the person has waited, having taken the advice of the House, he may be ruled out.
We keep on talking about objections being made within seven days. This is only the first representation to the rent officer. After that, the rent officer must decide what the rent is to be. When he does that, he informs the tenant and the landlord. There are 28 days in which to appeal. I hope we have not confused people as to the state of the law because of the way we have argued it.
This is one of the difficulties which arises when we truncate our arguments.

We have many matters to discuss although we do not have time to discuss them in full. We shall have to forgo voting on things simply because it takes about a quarter of an hour to vote and that cuts down the time for discussion.
The Under-Secretary was right to say that there is no statutory obligation, but he could make it a statutory obligation by regulation. If he would tell us that at some future time he will do that, we should be happy about it. I advise my hon. Friends that, with the assurances which have been given by the Undersecretary and his acceptance of the new wording, the Clause should be accepted.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Amendments to the proposed Clause made: (a), in line 2, after 'if', insert:
(a) in paragraphs 1 and 2 for the words 'seven days' there were substituted the words '14 days'.

(b), in line 7, at end add:
(2) Schedule 12 to the Act of 1971 (applications for registration of rents supported by certificate of fair rent) shall have effect as if in paragraph 7 for the words '7 days' there were substituted the words '14 days'.—[Mr. Edward Taylor.]

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New Clause 5

Orders of the Day — FAIR RENTS FOR FURNISHED DWELLINGS

Within one year of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State shall by order lay before both Houses of Parliament for their approval a scheme to bring furnished dwellings within the registered rents arrangements; and to afford to the tenants of such furnished dwellings the rent allowances set out in section 16 of this Act.—[Mr. Ewing.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
During discussion of a similar Clause in Committee all hon. Members agreed on the need for such a Clause to be inserted in the Bill. Many hon. Members, particularly those on this side, considered it to be unfortunate that the hon. Members for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) and for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr.


Edward Taylor) saw fit to withdraw their new Clause.
It is important to remember the guarantees and undertakings which formed the background against which those hon. Members withdrew their Clause. The Under-Secretary said that if their new Clause were to be accepted it would slow down the progress being made by a working party which was studying the problem to which the Clause was addressed. The Under-Secretary expressed the hope that he would be able to make a statement to the House in time for Report, but that statement has not been forthcoming.
The Bill will presumably come into force on 1st October. The Clause seeks to provide within one year from that date the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament
a scheme to bring furnished dwellings within the registered rents arrangements".
In Committee the report of the Francis Committee was quoted extensively. I will call in aid that report once again and point out that, contrary to the beliefs held by many people, the tenants of furnished dwellings are not the tenants who are in high income brackets; they are tenants who are in relatively low income brackets and who cannot afford to rent more expensive accommodation.
In replying to the debate in Committee the Under-Secretary said that there were great difficulties about accepting the principle which we seek to write into the Bill. Is it too much to hope that the thinking power which is undoubtedly present in the Civil Service in Scotland can think up a way of overcoming the difficulties and assisting these tenants?
There are about 20,000 tenants of furnished accommodation. That number includes students. My constituency includes the university town of Stirling which has a fairly large number of students. It is the lot of many hon. Members to have university towns in their constituency in which a fairly large number of students rent furnished accommodation. We seek to protect that section of the public.
There was no great division of opinion between the two sides of the Standing Committee. We were all agreed on the need to write this provision into the Bill. Despite what the Under-Secretary

said in Committee, there is concern among many people that if this provision is not written into the Bill at this stage the whole thing will be forgotten and those who will suffer will be the section of the community to which I have referred.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The purpose of the Clause apparently is to extend the fair rent formula to furnished tenancies and also to extend the rent allowance scheme to furnished tenants.
The question of the assimilation of the furnished and the unfurnished codes, which is the purpose of the Clause, was fully examined by the Francis Committee in Chapter 32 of its report, but after consideration of the arguments for and against assimilation the committee concluded that the complete assimilation of the codes in the manner proposed would in all probability result in a serious reduction in the supply of furnished accommodation for letting. That is a situation which neither side would wish. This view was accepted by the Government.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Would the Secretary of State care to refer also to page 235 of the report? In the minority report Miss Lyndal Evans expressed an entirely contrary view, namely, that it would make no difference to the availability of furnished accommodation. Why did the Secretary of State accept one part of the report and not another?

Mr. Gordon Campbell: This is history. The hon. Gentleman knows this, because we were both here at the time that the announcement was made by the Minister for Housing and Construction on behalf of the housing Ministers about the result of the Francis Committee's report. The majority reported as I have said, and the Government accepted the majority recommendation. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides would not wish to risk a reduction in the supply of furnished accommodation for letting.
However, the committee recommended that there should be a partial assimilation including the application of Section 46 of the Rent Act, 1968—the corresponding Scottish provision is Section 42 of the Rent (Scotland) Act, 1971; that is


the consolidating Act—to furnished contracts as regards the accommodation but not the furnishings, and that rent officers should fix the rent for furnished contracts. These recommendations along with many other recommendations are at present the subject of a detailed study by the Government and any new legislation will be introduced in due course.
The second purpose of the new Clause—the extension of rent allowances to furnished tenants—was debated at considerable length in Committee. A number of my hon. Friends as well as hon. Members opposite urged us to extend rent allowances to tenants of furnished accommodation. As stated at the time, we had already taken the first steps towards this desirable objective by setting up an informal working party at official level to look into the practicability of extending the rent allowance scheme as suggested. This is clearly something which the House recognises is a desirable objective but it is not something that can be done easily without a great deal of consideration.
I can now report that subsequently the working party's examination of the problem suggested that such a scheme, while containing considerable administrative difficulties, would be unlikely to raise insuperable obstacles of principle or implementation, particularly if it were to be introduced in the light of experience of the rent allowance scheme at present provided for in the Bill for private tenants in unfurnished accommodation.
In the circumstances, therefore, it seemed right to pursue the examination further, and I have arranged for formal consultations with representatives of the local authority associations in Scotland in the working party which has been considering all matters of concern to local authorities in the preparation of the Bill and its eventual implementation.
I believe that there is virtual unanimity of view on both sides of the House that legislation should, if possible, be introduced on this subject; but the Government naturally place considerable emphasis on the need to be sure that it is indeed possible to prepare workable legislation before being committed to bringing in a Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) was the first

to table a new Clause on this subject in Committee. It is accepted that this has not been and is not a party matter. As a result of the consultations now in progress, the Government hope that it will be possible to devise an effective scheme and, therefore, to bring forward legislation.
From this it can be concluded that we do not think that the passing of the Clause today is the appropriate way of eventually doing what both sides believe to be right. We are pursuing the goal which both sides wish for, which is to be able to produce legislation in due course which will carry out the purpose enshrined in this part of the Clause. But I cannot commend the new Clause to the House.

Mr. Buchan: I should like to take up the phrase "in due course" which the right hon. Gentleman used. What time scale has he in mind? Presumably, if the scheme is now being worked on, it will not take long to produce. Either it will succeed or it will not. Can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that we shall see it in the current year?

Mr. Campbell: If as a result of the consultations and consideration it is found, as I trust, that legislation can be produced, I hope we shall be able to introduce it soon. But the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that there is a great deal of legislation before the House and impending. It is not for me to predict precisely when legislation will be introduced. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that it is my wish that it should be introduced as soon as it is found possible to introduce it. I cannot say more than that. Competing Bills must be taken into account. This is something which we wish to deal with but not in the way proposed in the new Clause.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: The Secretary of State has not sought to discredit the new Clause on the basis of its drafting or any technical deficiency. His argument is that the Government may do something about these important issues in due course. I accept that this is not primarily a party issue. The two sides of the House are divided rather on the question of emphasis and the question of the timetable.
The first part of the new Clause recommends to the House the substantial assimilation of furnished rented dwellings with the code for unfurnished dwellings. The Secretary of State founded his argument upon the Francis Report. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) that even if one rejects the minority report one must take into account the considerable volume of experience lying behind it.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I wonder whether my hon. and learned Friend would ask the Secretary of State why, having accepted the Francis Report and having stressed in Committee what an important committee it was, the Government now accept the findings of the working party which apparently agrees with Miss Evans in her minority report.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have pointed out that there are enormous administrative difficulties about this matter but that the working party reported, I am glad to say—and I am sure that the whole House will welcome this—that the obstacles were not insuperable. However, the majority members of the Francis Committee were aware of the risk of a reduction in furnished accommodation. They made that clear, and the Government had to take it into consideration.

Mr. Murray: In addition to the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North made, with which I agree, I wish to press the point which I made in Committee that the assumption on which the majority of the Francis Committee proceeded was an unproved assumption. They did not say that they were satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that there would be a reduction of furnished lettings if the furnished code was assimilated with the unfurnished

code; they said that they feared there might be a reduction. We stress that that fear must be tested by a practical investigation, and the sooner that is under way the soon we can hope to achieve the objective which both sides of the House accept, namely, assimilation of this part of the housing code to the wider code of regulated tenancies.

I turn to the question of rent allowances. The Government said that a working party would look into the practicability of applying rent allowances to the occupants of furnished tenancies. It is not altogether surprising that we have had an interim report to the effect that it would be practicable but that experience would be desirable. This might have been said from the beginning. One would have thought that it was practicable and that there was no insuperable difficulty. We suggested in Committee that no insuperable difficulty would be involved. But we are now presented with the argument that it is desirable to have experience of this matter.

Surely the important thing is to get relevant experience, and the experience will be that bit more relevant if a scheme is tried. The virtue of the new Clause is that, if accepted, it would bring the relevant experience into force. The Clause may be imperfect, but is it not better to go ahead and eliminate injustice with a mechanism which can be improved as a result of experience? If the Clause is inserted in the Bill the experience will be relevant and the House will be able to make any corrections experience shows to be necessary. I commend new Clause 5.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 252.

Division No. 200.]
AYES
[6.40 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Booth, Albert
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Clark, David (Colne Valley)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Bradley, Tom
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)


Ashley, Jack
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Cohen, Stanley


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Concannon, J. D.


Atkinson, Norman
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Barnes, Michael
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Buchan, Norman
Crawshaw, Richard


Baxter, William
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Cronin, John


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Bidwell, Sydney
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)


Bishop, E. S.
Cant, R. B.
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carmichael, Neil
Dalyell, Tam


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)




Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham, S.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Deakins, Eric
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Prescott, John


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kaufman, Gerald
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kelley, Richard
Price, William (Rugby)


Dempsey, James
Lambie, David
Probert, Arthur


Doig, Peter
Lamborn, Harry
Rankin, John


Dormand, J. D.
Lamond, James
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lawson, George
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Driberg, Tom
Leadbitter, Ted
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dunn, James A.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Eadie, Alex
Leonard, Dick
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Roper, John


Ellis, Tom
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rose, Paul B.


English, Michael
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Evans, Fred
Lomas, Kenneth
Rowlands, Ted


Ewing, Harry
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Sandelson, Neville


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Shore, Rt Hn Peter (Stepney)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McBride, Neil
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Foot, Michael
McCartney, Hugh
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Ford, Ben
McElhone, Frank
Silkin Hn S. C. (Dulwich)


Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael
Sillars, James


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Silverman, Julius


Freeson, Reginald
Mackintosh, John P.
Skinner, Dennis


Galpern, Sir Myer
Maclennan Robert
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Garrett, W. E.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Spearing, Nigel


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Spriggs, Leslie


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Steel, David


Gourlay, Harry
Marks, Kenneth
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marsden, F.
Stonehouse Rt. Hn. John


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Strang, Gavin


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Swain, Thomas


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mayhew, Christopher
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Hamling, William 
Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Hardy, Peter
Mendelson, John
Tinn, James


Harper, Joseph
Mikardo, Ian
Torney, Tom


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Millan, Bruce
Urwin, T. W.


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Varley Eric G


Hattersley, Roy
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wainwright, Edwin


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walden Brian (B'm'ham All Saints)


Hilton, W. S.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Horam, John
Moyle, Roland
Wallace, George


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Murray, Ronald King
Watkins, David


Huckfield, Leslie
Ogden, Eric
Weitzman, David


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
O'Halloran, Michael
Wellbeloved, James


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
O'Malley, Brian
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Oram, Bert
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orbach,Maurice
Whitehead, Phillip


Hunter, Adam
Oswald, Thomas
Whitlock, William


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Aurthur(Edge Hill)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Janner, Greville
Padley, Walter
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Paget, R. T.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Pardoe, John
Woof, Robert


John, Brynmor
Parker, John (Dagenham)



Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and Mr. James Hamilton.


Johnston, Russel (Inverness)
Pendry, Tom



Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pentland, Norman



NOES


Adley, Robert
Biggs-Davison, John
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Blaker, Peter
Carlisle, Mark


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Body, Richard
Chapman, Sydney


Astor, John
Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Atkins, Humphrey
Bossom, Sir Clive
Chichester-Clark, R.


Awdry, Daniel
Bowden, Andrew
Churchill, W. S.


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Bray, Ronald
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Brewis, John
Clegg, Walter


Batsford, Brian
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Cockeram, Eric


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Cooke, Robert


Bell, Ronald
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Coombs, Derek


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Bryan, Sir Paul
Cormack, Patrick


Benyon, W.
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Costain, A. P.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Buck, Antony
Crouch, David


Biffen, John
Burden, F. A.
Crowder, F. P.







Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kershaw, Anthony
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Petet


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.James
Kilfedder James
Redmond, Robert


Dean, Paul
Kimball, Marcus
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Dixon, Piers
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Drayson, G. B.
Kinsey, J. R.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kirk, Peter
Ridsdale, Julian


Dykes, Hugh
Kitson, Timothy
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Emery, Peter.
Knox, David
Rost, Peter


Eyre, Reginald
Lambton, Lord
Russell, Sir Ronald


Farr, John
Lamont, Norman
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fell, Anthony
Lane, David
Scott, Nicholas


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sharples, Richard


Fidler, Michael
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Simeons, Charles


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'field)
Sinclair, Sir George


Fookes, Miss Janet
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fortescue, Tim
Loveridge, John
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Fowler, Norman
Luce, R. N.
Soref, Harold


Fox, Marcus
MacArthur, Ian
Speed, Keith


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
McLaren, Martin
Spence John


Fry, Peter
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Sproat, Ian


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
McMaster, Stanley
Stainton, Keith


Gardner, Edward 
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gibson-Watt, David
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Stokes, John


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maddan, Martin
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Goodhart, Philip
Madel, David
Sutcliffe, John


Goodhew, Victor
Marten, Neil
Tapsell, Peter


Gorst, John
Mather, Carol
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Gower, Raymond
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Green, Alan
Mawby, Ray
Tebbit, Norman


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Grylls, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Gummer, J. Selwyn
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Gurden, Harold
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tilney, John


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Moate, Roger
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Molyneaux, James
Trew, Peter


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Monro, Hector
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Montgomery, Fergus
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Charles
Waddington, David


Havers, Michael
Murton, Oscar
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hawkins, Paul
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Ward, Dame Irene


Hayhoe, Barney
Neave, Airey
Warren, Kenneth


Hicks, Robert
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Weatherill, Bernard


Higgins, Terence L.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wells John (Maidstone)


Hiley, Joseph
Nott, John
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Onslow, Cranley
Wiggin, Jerry


Holland, Philip
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Wilkinson, John


Holt, Miss Mary
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Winterton, Nicholas


Hordern, Peter
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hornby, Richard
Parkinson, Cecil
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Percival, Ian
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Woodnutt, Mark


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Worsley, Marcus


Hunt, John
Pink, R. Bonner
Wylie, Rt, Hn. N. R.


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Powall, Rt. Hn. Enoch
Younger, Hn. George


Iremonger, T. L.
Price, David (Eastleigh)



James, David
Proudfoot, Wilfred
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Mr Kenneth Clarke and Mr. Hamish Gray.


Jessel, Toby
Ouennell, Miss J. M.



Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Raison, Timothy



Jopling, Michael

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — New Clause 6

Orders of the Day — HOUSE SUBJECT TO CONDITION AS TO RENT UNDER HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1924.

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section the standard rent of any dwelling-house erected with financial assistance granted by a local

housing authority and subject to a condition as to rent imposed under the Housing (Finance Provisions) Act 1924, shall not be subject to increase by virtue of an application made in terms of section 40 of the Rent Act 1971, and shall be such amount, equal to the rent of a dwelling-house of comparable size, age, condition of repair and situation erected and owned by a local authority as may be determined by the local authority, or on appeal by the Secretary of State as provided for in subsection (2) below:

Provided always that—
(a) no increase in standard rent of such a dwelling-house shall exceed £39 per annum; and
(b) no increase in standard rent shall be made at less than twelve-monthly intervals.

(2) A local authority, on application by a landlord of such a dwelling-house as is referred to in subsection (1) hereof, shall within a period of 28 days from the date of application, issue a certificate of determination of comparable rent by reference to a specified house or houses erected and owned by the local authority and such certificate shall become effective on the expiry of a period of 28 days from the date thereof unless an appeal against the terms thereof or against the failure of a local authority to issue such a certificate within the period prescribed is lodged, in writing, with the Secretary of State before the expiry of the appropriate period by the landlord, the tenant or any other party having an interest therein whereupon the Secretary of State shall, after consideration of all relevant circumstances, issue a determination of comparable rent, subject to such conditions as regards date of operation and any other matter as he thinks fit, which decision shall be final and binding in respect of the period of increase to which it is related.—[Mr, Gregor Mackenzie.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
In deference to my hon. Friends who wish to speak on later Amendments I shall keep my remarks as brief as possible. The purpose of the new Clause is to protect the interests of the thousands who live in houses which were built with the assistance of subsidies provided under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924.
In my constituency and in other constituencies throughout the Glasgow area there are almost 17,000 or 18,000 of these houses which were built in the 1920s and 1930s with public money provided under that Act. When they were built they cost £200 or £300 and four in a block could be bought for about £1,000. But they were given Government and local authority subsidy on the basis that the then owners and the builders would charge reasonable rents during the 40 years' run of the subsidy. The provision assisted the housing of people in Glasgow and district by providing much needed houses at rents that people could afford.
In 1957 the position was slightly altered by decontrol, and the then owners of the properties overstepped the mark because they decided to try to sell

them. The company which owned them, the Western Heritable Investment Company, decided to sell for between £900 and £1,000 the houses which had been built with public money. Most people felt affronted by the fact that the company, which had received substantial amounts from the Government and local authorities over a long period, should then sell the houses to make considerable profits. Its decision was challenged by the local authorities which were involved and the case was taken as far as the House of Lords in order to prove that the conditions implicit in the Act of 1924—that the houses should be let at rents which normal people could afford to pay and should not be sold—still applied.
In 1968 a considerable number of houses owned by the Western Heritable Investment Company ceased to receive the subsidy. Shortly afterwards, under the 1969 Act which changed the law on rents, the company decided to increase the rents by about 800 per cent. from £32 a year to £260 a year. Quite naturally this caused great concern in my constituency and, I am sure, in many other parts of Glasgow. The rents that were proposed were nearly as great as the original cost of building the houses. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) present because I know he has been expressing concern about the matter. He has perhaps a different point of view from mine because he blames the situation on the 1969 Act. Perhaps he will comment on this later. There are those of us who doubt, as do some of the people in the local authorities, whether the company is using the 1969 Act properly.
I know that Glasgow and Lanarkshire local authorities have examined the position with the greatest possible care. I know too that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), when he discussed the matter with some of my constituents in Bankhead, indicated to them that he believed that the position of houses built with substantial sums of public money should be put to the Francis Committee for consideration. Even accepting what has been said by some members of the Conservative Party in Glasgow, the phasing provision in the 1969 Act would have been less harsh than the provisions contained in the Bill. The rent increase would have been phased over five years, and an increase


of 800 per cent. should be phased over a similar period.
For this reason we have provided in the new Clause the type of rent increase which can be made and the period over which such increase should be spread. I hope that the Secretary of State will bear the point in mind. As I understand the Bill, a substantial increase like £230 per annum would have to be spread over two years and divided into three separate instalments, and this would mean that each instalment would be about £70. Irrespective of how wealthy a tenant might be, this represents a great deal of money and people are entitled to a measure of protection. If the Government are genuinely concerned about tenants they will accept the new Clause.
There is much concern among these tenants not only about their present position but about what the future holds for them. As I understand the Bill and the statements by the Secretary of State about how he sees the position after 1975, the rent officers will be obliged to consider the rents that can be charged taking account of the price that a house such as I have been discussing would fetch on the open market. Strange as it may seem, these houses which were built for £200 or £300 can now command a price of between £4,000 and £5,000. If that figure were taken seriously into account by rent officers, rents could be even higher than the figure of £260 per annum which I have mentioned.
7.0 p.m.
Many of these houses, apart from those in the constituencies of Craigton and Rutherglen, are in the constituencies of the hon. Members for Glasgow, Hill-head (Mr. Galbraith) and for Cathcart. With all respect to him, I do not feel that I can look to the hon. Member for Hillhead for a great deal of support in rent matters. I have heard his speeches on this subject over a fair number of years and we think of him as the patron saint of the Glasgow factors, so we do not look to him for help in these matters. On the other hand, I look seriously to the hon. Member for Cathcart for some help on this question. He has been expressing concern, as I have, and I hope that he will feel able to support our new Clause.
A great many of the tenants living in these houses have been there for a great

many years, and a large proportion of them are old-age pensioners. They, like others, are frightened by the statements which they have heard made by the owners of their houses. It is significant also that in Rutherglen, Bankhead, Kings Park, Craigton and Kelvindale there is a curious reluctance on the part of these older people to apply for rate rebates. There is, perhaps, a spirit of independence among them which one can regard as commendable but which will certainly not make their lives any easier in present circumstances.
The tenants are concerned, first, about the increases in rents which they fear and, second, about what will happen to their rates. In an article last year, the Glasgow Herald referred to this matter and pointed out that if the rents rose from £32 to £260, a substantial increase, the city assessor would be obliged to consider that in making his new valuations.
I have put forward the new Clause as briefly as possible. I hope that the Secretary of State will accept it. The only people who will benefit from the Government's scheme as it stands will be the owners of the houses, who have been receiving substantial subsidy over a long period of years, while the tenants will receive no benefit whatever.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): The Question is—

Mr. Ross: I was hoping that we should have some sort of reply from the Secretary of State.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I am very ready to speak at this stage. I thought that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) wished to speak; I thought he was hesitating and was about to rise. However, I am glad to respond at this moment if that is what the House wishes.
The apparent object of the new Clause is to exclude those houses which were provided by private enterprise with the assistance of grants from a local authority under Section 2 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, from the fair rents system and to empower local authorities, and on appeal the Secretary of State, to fix rents for such houses, subject to the same limitations regarding maximum increases and frequency of increase as will apply in the public sector under the Bill.
The subsidy which was payable under the 1924 Act on completion of a house lasted for 40 years. After the payments cease, at the end of the 40 years, the houses join the ordinary stock of housing in Scotland. The subsidy under the 1924 Act was a measure designed to encourage the building of houses for letting at that time. The subsidy conditions restricted the rents, but after payment of the subsidy ends it is appropriate that the houses should be subject to the same laws as apply to all other privately rented houses.
No principle has ever been established that Exchequer assistance should be a ground for excluding a house from the fair rent provisions of the Rent Act. Indeed, the 1969 Act introduced by the Labour Government specifically enabled the rent of a house improved with the aid of grant to reflect fully the improved value of the house.
The new Clause would have the effect of creating a privileged category of tenant who, by chance, occupies a house built with the aid of subsidy over 40 years ago and who would for this reason, and this reason alone, pay a rent lower than a fair rent.
What justification is there for treating these tenants differently from tenants of other controlled houses? The rents have remained virtually unchanged since the houses were built. The increases allowed under the 1957 Act did no more than make up the reduction resulting from the abolition of owners' rates in 1956.
The tenants of these houses, whether the tenancies are converted under the 1969 Act procedure or under the proposals in Clause 34 of the Bill, will be treated exactly the same as all other tenants in similar circumstances. They will have the same opportunity to state their case to the rent officer and to the rent assessment committee. The fair rent will be determined under the same statutory provisions, namely, Section 42 of the consolidation Act, the Rent (Scotland) Act, 1971; the same factors will be taken into account and discounted, and, in particular the age, character and locality of the house and its state of repair will be considered, while the scarcity element and any improvements or replacement of fixtures or fittings carried out by the tenant will be disregarded.
Where a tenancy is converted from being a controlled tenancy into a regulated tenancy, either following upon the issue of a qualification certificate under the 1969 Act procedure or by virtue of Clause 34 of the Bill, any increase in rent up to the amount registered will be phased under Schedule 13 to the 1971 Act or Schedule 6 to the Bill, respectively.
As I have said, subsidy under the 1924 Act is payable for 40 years from completion of the house. Subsidy is no longer being paid in respect of some of the houses and it is, therefore, already possible, if they are let under regulated tenancies and are no longer controlled, for fair rents to be fixed under existing legislation. Some such fair rents have, in fact, been fixed. The Opposition, when they were in power, did not see anything strange in that. They saw nothing wrong in it, and neither do I. Their legislation—I speak in particular of the 1969 Act—made no provision to create a special category for these houses, which are now gradually coming out of the 40-year period during which subsidy was payable. The houses built after the 1924 Act, in the later 1920s and early 1930s, have been coming and will continue to come out of that 40-year subsidy period.
The Labour Government made no provision in their scheme to exclude such houses from the fair rents system when subsidy was no longer paid and they joined the stock of Scottish housing.

Mr. Bruce Millan: rose—

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman had his chance to speak a few moments ago. No doubt he will seek an opportunity in due course. I listened carefully to what was said by the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) and I understand the point he makes, which, to put it briefly, is that tenants who thought that they were in a protected category may suddenly find themselves no longer in that category.
If the new Clause were to be adopted those tenants would then be in a new, special category different from other tenants in similar houses. It would be wrong to create a special category of this kind if they go into the fair rent system. When the period of subsidy ends they will have all the opportunities


and protection which the system introduced by the last Government gives them, in the same way as other tenants occupying similar accommodation.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Does not the Secretary of State mean that the landlords would be placed in a special position? Unlike the other landlords they received a public subsidy, yet they are being treated as if they were landlords who had built entirely from their own private resources. Is not the Secretary of State aware of the Departmental files of evidence produced by the Western Heritable Investment Company tenants to Ministers when they were advised to present their evidence to the Francis Committee? Is he not aware of what the deliberations were, the evidence and the correspondence, and whether there was a case for them to be allowed special provisions?

Mr. Campbell: I have been talking about that case. The hon. Gentleman's first point concerns landlords. During the 40 years that the houses received subsidy the rent has virtually stood still. Rents have been at late 1920s or early 1930s rates and extremely low. The houses have presumably been kept in basic repair because the landlords have received some subsidy. They have not been entirely dependent upon the small rent to keep the houses in repair. The last Government brought in a fair rent system so that there should be more money for repairs to keep the houses from falling into complete decay and dilapidation. For those reasons these houses, when they came into this same category, were not excluded by the last Government in their legislation.
There was a reference to the Francis Committee. That Committee has now reported but we have reached the conclusion that there is no case for creating a new, special category. The landlords are not in a new special category. They will be in the same position as other landlords under the fair rent system. They have had special protection, if that is the right word, while receiving the subsidy because they were able to keep the houses in repair under that subsidy. There is no question of their being in a special category as opposed to other owners of houses of this kind.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: Can my right hon. Friend tell the

House whether other houses were buit during this period for private letting? think the answer is "No". There wen no houses being let privately and it was only because of this subsidy that the houses could be built for letting.

Mr. Campbell: I am sure that my hon Friend's knowledge of the housing posi tion in the late 1920s and 1930s is greate than mine. If he says that was the case I am sure it is right. It is clear that this subsidy was introduced by the 1924 Act nearly 50 years ago, to encourage the building of houses for private letting, anc the subsidy arrangements were made accordingly. When those subsidy arrangements ran out after a house had been completed and in existence for 40 years there was no special arrangement govern ing the period following.
There should be no argument between the two Front Benches on this matter The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr Dickson Mabon), who was a Minister ir the Scottish Office dealing with this subject at the time of his own 1965 and 1969 legislation, made no special arrangements to exclude these categories. The hon Gentleman made reference to the Francis Committee but that was all that the last Government did.
For the reasons I have stated, we feel that the tenants will get the protection which they should have from the fair rents system like other tenants in similar circumstances.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Can the Secretary of State specify how much has been paid to the Western Heritable Investment Company over the years for the thousands of houses that it built?

Mr. Campbell: Without notice I cannot. I am not sure that such a figure will be available. I will see during the course of this debate whether we can answer that question. However, it is irrelevant to this part of the Clause because the houses were built in the late 1920s and early 1930s after the Act was passed, so tney are gradually coming one by one to the end of their 40 years. What we are dealing with now is whether they should come into the fair rent system introduced by the last Government which we have been improving upon. That is the question before us and I cannot commend the new Clause to the House.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Millan: That is a thoroughly unsatisfactory answer. The reason why there was a slight hesitation on my part in getting up when my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor MacKenzie) sat down was that I fully expected either the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), who we all know is a considerable friend of the Glasgow landlords, or the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) who has been willing to make speeches about this particular problem of his tenants, particularly when there was a Labour Government, at the drop of a hat to the King's Park Tenants' Association and anybody else that cared to invite him, would rise. I thought one of them might have got up and said something about this new Clause. I am astounded that they have not done so.

Mr. Edward Taylor: rose—

Mr. Millan: The hon. Member for Cathcart is now getting into one of his states of excitement, but perhaps he will allow me to make my speech. He can then let us have the benefit of his wisdom on this matter.
The argument we have just had from the Secretary of State is a completely invalid one. These houses axe not ordinary privately built houses for letting. They are in an entirely different category and they should be treated entirely differently. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen has explained the background to the building of these houses adequately and I need not go over the matters that he dealt with. It is true that under the existing legislation, before this Bill came forward, some of these houses have been eligible to be treated under the fair rent procedure. First, the number is extremely limited, and, secondly, the Bill will convert all these houses from the present situation to the fair rent procedure. The effect of the 1965 Act was to place a limit on rent increases which would otherwise have been completely unlimited under the rent decontrol provision of the 1957 Act of the previous Conservative Government.
I make that point particularly as the hon. Member for Cathcart has been assiduous over a long period in misleading tenants' associations into thinking that

the only reason they have ever had to bear increases in rent has been the provisions of the 1965 Act. The position is entirely different. Without the 1965 Act the limited number of houses that were involved would have had the possibility of unlimited increases imposed upon them. The 1965 Act limited these provisions by the fair rents provision.
A more important matter which the Secretary of State does not seem to understand, and which was to be the point of my intervention, is that the kind of massive increases that we are now talking about have happened only within the last year or so. They did not happen under the Labour Government prior to June, 1970. Not one of the houses in my constituency has been subjected to any massive rent increases prior to June, 1970. We are now dealing with an entirely new situation and an entirely new problem.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: rose—

Mr. Millan: The right hon. Gentleman was very reluctant to give way to me; otherwise I should be glad to give way to him now. If he is saying that there are houses in my constituency for which there were massive increases in rent prior to June, 1970, I shall be glad to hear him say so.

Mr. Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me. Any increases that are taking place now are entirely the results of legislation passed by the Labour Government, of which the hon. Gentleman was a member. There is nothing in the Bill and nothing that we have passed since being in office, since June, 1970, which has altered those rents.

Mr. Millan: The right hon. Gentleman is simply confirming my point. He is not denying that the increases which we are discussing are not increases that occurred under the Labour Government.

Mr. Campbell: Yes, they are.

Mr. Millan: They did not happen prior to June, 1970. When my hon. Friends met the tenants' associations in June, 1970, they gave them every indication that, as well as the matter being referred to the Francis Committee, the Labour Government at the time recognised that as these houses fell out of subsidy—and


they have done that post-1970—there would have to be special legislation for them.
It is misleading for the right hon. Gentleman—and, to be fair to him, I think that he is simply ignorant of the facts—to pretend that this is something always intended by the Labour Government's legislation. It is not a problem that arose prior to June, 1970, and I defy him to bring me one example from my constituency, or anywhere else, of a massive rent increase before June, 1970. It is a problem which is arising now and it is a problem which demands attention now and it would have had attention from a Labour Government.
The right hon. Gentleman says that these houses will be subject to the fair rent procedures that will apply to any other kind of private tenancies, that they will be subject to phasing and rebates and so on. I object to the extension of the fair rent procedure in the Bill, but the right hon. Gentleman completely misses the basis of the fair rent system. It was to provide a fair rent not only for the tenant but for the landlord. A fair rent to the landlord meant taking account of the fact that, because of rent control over a long period of years, many landlords have had inadequate returns from rented properties. It was recognised that this was a genuine problem.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting observation. Is he saying that the rises in rent had a retrospective effect? If that is what he is saying, his argument is without foundation.

Mr. Millan: I have not made that argument and that intervention was a complete waste of time. The fair rent provisions were designed to give a fair rent to the landlord as well as to the tenant and to recognise that many landlords had had a bad deal financially over the period of rent control.
But that does not apply to these houses. The landlords of these houses have not had a bad deal by any kind of argument. Indeed, they have been cossetted from the start. There was no risk in building these houses, for they were built with Government and local authority subsidy. The landlords have made a killing

out of these houses, and the tenants in Rutherglen and in Cathcart and in my constituency know it. There is no question of retrospectively recompensing landlords who have invested money in property and then suffered because of rent control over the years. The landlords of these houses have never been at risk, have never lost any money. The money going to them under the Bill, unless we accept the new Clause, will merely add to their profits, not recompense them for losses which they have made on these houses in the past, for they have not made losses on these houses in the past.
That puts these houses in a category entirely different from that of the normally privately rented houses, and it means that the fair rent provisions are completely inappropriate to them. These houses were built for about £300 apiece, and they now attract rents of £260 after 40 years of Government and local authority subsidy. Many of these houses have been sold, and their current price is now about £4,500.
It is an absolute scandal that we should be allowing this state of affairs to continue. Basically, these houses are analogous to local authority houses, and it is monstrous that there should not be special provision for them in the Bill. As the right hon. Gentleman must realise, I am not enamoured of the Bill's proposals for local authority houses and I should have preferred the new Clause to go a good deal further, but at least these houses should be on the same basis as local authority houses.
That would considerably reduce the increases which the tenants of these houses would have to pay. Many of them are elderly. This is not just another sob story. We have heard much about elderly tenants and we know their problems, but there is a preponderance of elderly tenants in these houses because the houses were built 40 years ago and were let largely to young newly married couples many of whom are now pensioners. Many of them are extremely alarmed about the increases now being notified to them, admittedly under existing legislation, without any kind of protection introduced since 1970 and with no protection provided by the Bill.
The Clause would put these tenants on all fours with local authority tenants and


would modify the increases. Many of the tenants admit that the present rents are too low—as I do—for they are not unreasonable people. Incidentally, most of them vote for hon. Gentlemen opposite rather than for my party, but they are reasonable people despite that. They admit that rents are too low and they would be happy to accept comparability with local authority tenants. What they are not willing to accept are the monstrous increases with which they will be faced unless some provision like the new Clause is introduced.
The new Clause would be over-generous to landlords, but in the interests of moderation and compromise it is the least we should have. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his position and not treat the matter as complacently as he did when replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen. There is considerable dismay, apprehension and anger among these tenants about what they rightly regard as the Government's complete unawareness of their problems and the Government's inability if not unwillingness to produce some kind of reasonable solution for them.

Mr. Edward Taylor: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) has made a savage attack on the Government for failing to do something about the problems of tenants of Western Heritable Investments. He has been assiduous and conscientious in looking after the interests of his tenants, but I think that if he reads his speech tomorrow he will realise that he has been blatantly unfair to the Government and has totally misled the House, although not deliberately, about the activities of the Labour Government, particularly the activities of his hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) who so happily introduced the 1969 Act by which the rents of these houses are now being increased.
It should be said at once that, as the hon. Member for Craigton is well aware, the rents of these houses are being increased now. Rent determinations are being made now and applications are being made now. The Bill is not yet law and will not be law for some time. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues should make it absolutely clear to the tenants of Western Heritable houses that

the increases now being introduced and about which they are greatly concerned and about which they are holding meetings, which the hon. Member and I have attended, result from the 1969 Act by which houses which were controlled are being brought into decontrol.
7.30 p.m.
The hon. Member made a fair point. He said "It is all very well but the fact is that until we had a Tory Government nothing was happening to the rents there; they were still relatively low and were not increasing". He said that the tenants are very concerned at the fact that since the Tory Government came into office something has happened. The hon. Member will find the reason for this in a letter that I received from the hon. Member for Greenock, at that time Minister of State for Scotland. I wrote to him in April, 1970, because the tenants of King's Park and Croftfoot had been concerned whether the new Bill which the hon. Member had introduced would affect their rents. I was interested in the matter and I wrote to the hon. Member for Greenock asking whether that was the case, and whether the rents would be increased. He explained quite fairly that the houses which the Western Heritable Investment Company owned had been built between 1928 and 1932, under the 1924 Act, which provided for an annual subsidy from local authorities, to which the Exchequer made a contribution, payable over 40 years, on condition that the rents were fixed by the local authorities.
The houses were also covered by the Rent Acts up to 1967. All tenancies were therefore controlled, and until the 40 years run out the rents cannot be increased without the specific approval of the local authorities, according to the splendid advice that the hon. Member for Greenock so kindly gave me in his prompt reply to my letter. The fact that the rents have not been increased is not due to any splendid or altruistic concern of the Labour Government but simply because, under the legislation of 1924, the rents could not be adjusted without the specific approval of the local authorities.
I asked the hon. Member for Greenock whether the rents of these houses would come up to the fair rents level as proposed under the 1969 Measure. I had a meeting with the tenants on 5th June,


1970, and at that point we specifically asked whether there was a possibility of phasing being introduced at a more reasonable level—in other words, whether there could be the same kind of restriction as that imposed by the prices and incomes legislation, and which was available for corporation tenants. The hon. Gentleman explained that that was not possible.
He admitted that the whole question of the operation of the Rent Acts was being considered by the Francis Committee, but he gave us no hope that something would be done to place the rents of these houses on the same basis as the rents of corporation houses.
If the hon. Member for Craigton has any information in writing—and I had a long correspondence with the hon. Member for Greenock about this—to the effect that the previous Government said that they would make special provision for the WHI I should be glad to have it, because I have a letter from his hon. Friend dated 22nd April, 1970—only two or three months before he went out of office at the General Election—giving a clear indication that the1969 Act would apply to tenants of the WHI company houses. That is clearly spelled out. The letter is here, and is on the record for everyone to see.
In order to try to put the record straight we should appreciate precisely what the new Bill will mean to WHI tenants. Their rents are being increased and can be increased to the fair rent level under the existing 1969 legislation. There is not one WHI house in Scotland which cannot have its rent increased to a fair rent level under the Labour Government's legislation so long as a qualification certificate is obtained.
Although applications in respect of individual houses have been turned down by local authorities because of defects, generally speaking the tolerable standards of these houses ensure that the majority automatically qualify. The basic difference between the situation now and that which will exist when the new Bill becomes law is that the qualification certificate goes.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: If the Labour Government's legislation was as bad as the hon. Member suggests, what is wrong with improving it by accepting my new Clause?

Mr. Taylor: I wish that the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) and his hon. Friend the Member for Craigton had made that point when the 1969 Measure was going through the House. The hon. Member for Rutherglen is conscientious, but it is blatant hypocrisy for the hon. Member for Craigton to have allowed the 1969 Measure to go through, to see his tenants have their rents increased as a direct result, and then give the impression that the increase is the result of Tory Government legislation.
I also make the point that the main change that is taking place in respect of elderly people is that instead of their having their rents increased to a fair rent level over a period of five years the Bill increases the rents over a period of three years, which will mean that the rents will rise faster and by greater amounts over three annual instalments instead of five.
On the other hand, it should be appreciated that at the same time the Government are introducing what we pleaded with hon. Members opposite to introduce when they were in power and what they refused to introduce. At the time of the 1969 proceedings my hon. Friend pleaded for the introduction of a rent rebate scheme under which those with limited incomes would not have to bear a substantial increase in rents. The hon. Member for Rutherglen has said that fair rents are being determined at a level which may reach £6 per week. He will be aware that under the rebate scheme introduced by this Government only newly married couples with incomes of over £30 a week will pay the full increase.
If the hon. Member considers what might be the average rent of a married couple with an income of £16 a week—£9·70 pension and £6·30 other income—he will see that under our arrangements, with the rent allowance scheme, only in a few cases will the increase exceed the amount proposed under the previous phasing arrangements, and that at the end of the day the tenants will be paying less. It is only fair that these things should be said when a clear attempt has been made to give the impression to these tenants that their rents are being increased because of a Tory Bill. Their rents are being increased rather more speedily


under this Conservative Government, but only to the same figure as was fixed before, and, in addition, we are bringing in for the first time a rebate scheme to protect tenants who need protection under this legislation.
It is only right to tell my right hon. Friend that, considering the wording of the Amendment, there is real merit in providing that the annual increase for tenants should be fixed at a maximum figure. The Amendment's figure of £39 a year seems not unreasonable.

Mr. Millan: The hon. Member, as usual, is on everybody's side at the same time.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member is being quite unfair, especially considering the speech that he has just made, which was both misleading and hypocritical. My right hon. Friend is aware from the approaches that I have made to him and from private representations that it is very difficult to justify, in logic, an increase in the rents of corporation houses limited to an average of 50p per week when, at the same time, no upper limit is being imposed in respect of the tenants of private houses. It would seem only fair that if we provide, on the one hand, that the tenants of corporation houses shall have their rents increased by only 50p per week, on average—or a maximum of 75p per week—we should introduce similar arrangements in respect of tenants of private houses.
From what I have said to my right hon. Friend today and what I have said in Committee it will be clear that I feel strongly about this question. There is a case for saying that people living in private houses at rents which are accepted to be very low should have, apart from the benefits available under the rebate scheme, a maximum figure per annual increase fixed for them. It is true that those who are on very low incomes will get the advantage of the rebate scheme but those on high incomes will find that because of the extent of the increase permitted over the three-year period under the new legislation they will have to make a rather rapid adjustment to their standard of living.
There is some merit in saying that for WHI houses, and, indeed, for all private

houses, a maximum annual figure should be fixed. That is why, unless we can have a very good Government answer, despite what I have said about the case made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton, which rather disgusted me, my inclination will be to vote for the new Clause.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: In any competition for hypocrisy the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) would come first. There is no doubt about that. We have had a number of smokescreens put up in his argument. I must be quick, because of the guillotine, in trying to get these points over, since the hon. Member referred to me and various correspondence we have had about the Western Heritable Investment Company.
The hon. Gentleman's final plea was strictly speaking not really connected with the Clause, although it is related to it. It could be applied to the whole Bill. If he sustained it with any conviction he would have tabled a series of Amendments in Committee to justify the application of that principle and he would have found a ready response from this side of the Committee. That principle of limiting increases was applied by us when in government in the Acts to which the hon. Gentleman referred. He has a very bad memory if he does not remember. Does he not remember the prices and incomes legislation in the last Parliament which restricted increases in rent all round? There was no attempt in Committee or on Report by the hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friends to propound this principle with sincerity. That is humbug number one.
I admit that these houses, coming up in the sequence of time that they did, could not have been embraced in the 1969 Act. If we had had wise people in the Department telling us that we would have had the same problems with houses going out of decontrol—literally decontrol, not 1957 Act decontrol, but 1924 Act decontrol—perhaps we would have included them in that Act. Everyone cannot be wise all the time and keep up to date on all matters. If hon. Gentlemen opposite had been so keenly aware of this problem which was to emerge in 1969–70 why did they not make some representations to the Department then? [Interruption.] They did not. The hon.


Gentleman started his correspondence and I would like him to publish not just that one letter but all of it, not just the April letter but the June letter which said to the tenants, as I said to them orally, that they should go and present evidence to the Francis Committee. When we passed the 1969 Act one of our pledges was that there would be a commitee of investigation and as a consequence there would be new legislation.
In the 1969 Act we made it a principle that tenants' money would not be used against the tenant to pay the landlords' rent. That was in the Statute and it was a big principle, changing from the 1965 Act to the 1969 Act. The Western Heritable Investment Company is a highly exceptional circumstance in Scotland; I do not know whether there is another example in the United Kingdom. It posed to the Francis Committee and to the next Government, the present Government, this simple question: "If you put in Exchequer money, taxpayers' money, should the landlord get the benefit of it?" It seems illogical, having passed a Statute which said that the landlord should not get the benefit of that money, not to say that public investment would not be allowed to count for the assessment of the rent. That can be written into the Statute.
That is exactly where we are at the moment. If a Labour Government had been elected we would have had the Francis Committee as it stands. We would have taken an entirely different attitude from the Secretary of State. He dismissed it; he never even referred to the evidence, he never sought to argue or justify it or to rebut the principle I have tried to enunciate. There was no attempt by the right hon. Gentleman—and, even worse, no attempt by the hon. Gentleman—to champion this principle which seems to me an eminently sensible thing to do. There is surely no doctrinaire battle about this. This is taxpayers' money. Surely the hon. Gentleman, in defence of the public purse, never mind his tenants, would not allow this principle to stand. No, he makes the usual smokescreens and confuses us about who did what, when, where and why.
7.45 p.m.
It is the usual nonsense that we get from the hon. Gentleman when he is trying to evade a simple matter of principle.

It was a straight matter of principle. This Bill or some other Bill in this Parliament ought to face up to the question of whether landlords should be allowed to charge rents based on a considerable investment of thousands of pounds of tenants' money. Even apart from the money, the principle demands a fair answer. If this new Clause is not the answer there must be something else.
We are being offered absolutely nothing by the Government who have turned down the new Clause and will recognise no substitute. They will do all the terrible things that the hon. Member for Cathcart has been complaining about, both under the Labour Government and now. He has no alibis left. The "Little Emperor" is naked before all the people of Cathcart and unless the Government adopt this new Clause or some other method he stands there, scandalously bare. I would suggest, for the sake of decency if not of obscenity, that something should be done quickly about this. The new Clause represents an issue of principle and is not a party matter. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) will seek to reply to what I have said and no doubt will have to recognise that this is a point which merits a reply.

Mr. Galbraith: Every speaker opposite has referred to me, and, although I do not intend to speak for long because of the guillotine, I would like to tell the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) that I am not the patron saint of the Glasgow factors or the patron saint of anyone. It would be a foolish person who chose anyone with the name of "Thomas" for his patron saint, because he was a doubter, and I certainly doubted a lot of what the hon. Member for Rutherglen said, and particularly the novel theory of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), who seemed to be suggesting that there should be some retrospective element and that because landlords had had low rents they were now to get especially high rents. If that was not what he was suggesting there is no reason, now that the subsidy period of 40 years is over, why these houses should not be treated in the same way as other houses and be subjected to the fair rent legislation.
I hope that the party opposite, now it is in opposition, will not retreat from the


very courageous stand it took. I notice that the right hon. Member for Kil-marnock (Mr. Ross) has been keeping unusually quiet. I hope this means that he dissociates himself from his hon. Friends the Members for Craigton and Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon). If, as the hon. Member for Greenock suggested, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), was dancing on a tight rope, he too was dancing on an equally tight rope. The Labour Party introduced the fair rent legislation and all that my right hon. Friend is saying is that this should apply to those houses now that the 40-year period is over. That is right and just, and I accept it.

Mr. Ross: I have been keeping unusually quiet because the time is now eleven minutes to eight o'clock, and at eight o'clock the guillotine falls. Between now and eight o'clock we are supposed to cover 70 Amendments. The longest speeches today have come from hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Galbraith: I took two minutes.

Mr. Ross: I do not consider the hon. Gentleman's effort a speech at all.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) dealt with the past, forgetting that here is a new Clause which would give considerable justice and relief to those people whose case he has been putting. He never put that case during the proceedings on the 1969 Act.

Mr. Edward Taylor: That is untrue. I certainly did.

Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman really means what he has been saying all these months, he should join us in the Lobby in voting for new Clause 6.
It is not my intention to delay the proceedings very much further. Hon. Members should appreciate that no one can claim any piece of legislation to be perfect. This Bill did not go into Committee perfect. The Government themselves had to put down 100 Amendments and about three new Clauses to it in Committee.
There is no doubt that, following the Francis Committee's Report, we would have taken action in relation to the position of these houses. We would also

have taken action on other aspects of the report, not least on the question of furnished flats. All these things should have been taken in by the present Government but they have decided not to do so. The hon. Member for Cathcart will no longer be able to complain about what happened under the Labour legislation of 1969. There is no doubt about what we intended in respect of this sort of thing.
The hon. Member forgot to mention that the 1924 Act was also a Labour Government Act—the celebrated Wheatley Act, which gave the real impetus towards the provision of houses for the working class in Scotland, together with the provisions for finance which are equally being wiped out with other, later financial provisions. The hon. Gentleman should study that Act, how rents were controlled and how the local authorities had to have regard to fair rents in fixing rents. If he does so, he will appreciate the fairness of what we are suggesting. I hope the House will support new Clause 6.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I will briefly reply to several points made by the hon. Members for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon).The first concerns the problem arising in the late 1960s and the 1970s. This is the period when the first houses completed started to reach the 40-year period. Naturally the process has been increasing. The hon. Member for Craigton chose the date of June,1970, for his argument presumably because there was then the change of Government. He argued that the rents of these houses had been going up since then. I pointed out that this was being done under legislation passed by the Labour Government and it had nothing to do with us. On the hon. Gentleman's own admission, no provision was made in the Labour Government's 1969 Act to exclude this category of houses from the fair rents system. On his own admission also—and I found it difficult to follow this part of his argument—that legislation was passed by the Labour Government in a way which meant that it had no effect on the raising of rents until after they had left office. There can hardly be anything more cynical or diabolically calculated than that.
All this was done by the Labour Government without any provision for rent allowances for tenants. Whether there


was anything intentional in it I do not know. I do not myself believe that the last Government did it intentionally so as to leave the situation as a kind of depth charge for us. One thing is certain: some of the Opposition's supporters are not above giving the impression that rent rises since June, 1970, are in some way the result of non-existent legislation by the present Government, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) pointed out that this was deceiving the public.

The houses we are considering under new Clause 6 are increasingly coming out of the 40-year period of subsidy and they fall, under previous legislation, to be dealt with under the fair rent system like other houses of the same kind. The present Government believe, as the last Government did, that this is something which should happen.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 254.

Division No. 201.]
AYES
[7.55 p.m


Abse, Leo
English, Michael
Lyon. Alexander W. (York)


Albu, Austen
Evans, Fred
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ewing, Henry
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McBride, Neil


Armstrong, Ernest
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McCartney, Hugh


Ashley, Jack
Foot, Michael
McElhone, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Ford, Ben
McGuire, Michael


Atkinson, Norman
Forrester, John
Mackenzie, Gregor


Barnes, Michael
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackintosh, John P


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Freeson, Reginald
Maclennan, Robert


Baxter, William
Galpern, Sir Myer
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Garrett, W. E.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield E)


Bidwell, Sydney
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Marks, Kenneth


Bishop, E. S.
Gourlay, Harry
Marsden, F.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mason, Rt. Kn. Roy


Booth, Albert
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mayhew, Christopher


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Meacher, Michael


Bradley, Tom
Hamling, William
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mendelson, John


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Hardy, Peter
Mikardo, Ian


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Harper, Joseph
Millan, Bruce


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Buchan, Norman
Hattersley, Roy
Milne, Edward


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hilton, W. S.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Horam, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Campbell, I (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Cant, R. B.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Moyle, Roland


Carmichael, Neil
Huckfield, Leslie
Murray, Ronald King


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oakes, Gordon


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
O'Halloran, Michael


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
O'Malley, Brian


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oram, Bert


Cohen, Stanley
Hunter, Adam
Orbach, Maurice


Concannon, J. D.
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Oswald, Thomas


Corbet. Mrs. Freda
Janner, Greville
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Padley, Waiter


Crawshaw, Richard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Paget, R. T.


Cronin, John
John, Brynmor
Palmer, Arthur


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kaufman, Gerald
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kelley, Richard
Prescott, John


Deakins, Eric
Lambie, David
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lamborn, Harry
Price, William (Rugby)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lamond, James
Probert, Arthur


Dempsey, James
Lawson, George
Rankin, John


Doig, Peter
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Reed, D. (Sedgefleld)


Dormand, J. D.
Leonard, Dick
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Driberg, Tom
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dunn, James A.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lipton, Marcus
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lomas, Kenneth
Roper, John


Ellis, Tom






Rose, Paul B.
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Wallace, George


Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Strang, Gavin
Watkins, David


Rowlands, Ted
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Weitzman, David


Sandelson, Neville
Swain, Thomas
Wellbeloved, James


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Taverne, Dick
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)
Whitehead, Phillip


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Whitlock, William


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee. E.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Sillars, James
Tinn, James
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Silverman, Julius
Torney, Tom
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Skinner, Dennis
Urwin, T. W.
Woof, Robert


Smith, John (Lanarkshire. N.)
Varley, Eric G.



Spriggs, Leslie
Wainwright, Edwin
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Steel, David
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints
Mr. James Hamilton and


Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mr. Tom Pendry.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Fell, Anthony
Kitson, Timothy


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fidler, Michael
Knox, David


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Lambton, Lord


Astor, John
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Lamont, Norman


Atkins, Humphrey
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lane, David


Awdry, Daniel
Fookes, Miss Janet
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Fortesue, Tim
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fowler, Norman
Le Marchant, Spencer


Batstord, Brian
Fox, Marcus
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Bell, Ronald
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Loveridge, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Gardner, Edward
Luce, R. N.


Benyon, W.
Gibson-Watt, David
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
MacArthur, Ian


Biffen, John
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McLaren, Martin


Biggs-Davison, John
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Blaker, Peter
Goodhart, Philip
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Goodhew, Victor
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Body, Richard
Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Gower, Raymond
Maddan, Martin


Bossom, Sir Clive
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Madel, David


Bowden, Andrew
Green, Alan
Marten, Neil


Bray, Ronald
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mather, Carol


Brewis, John
Grylls, Michael
Maude, Angus


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Mawby, Ray


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gurden, Harold
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Miscampbell, Norman


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Buck, Antony
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Burden, F. A.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Moate, Roger


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Haselhurst, Alan
Molyneaux, James


Carlisle, Mark
Havers, Michael
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hawkins, Paul
Monro, Hector


Chapman, Sydney
Hayhoe, Barney
Montgomery, Fergus


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hicks, Robert
More, Jasper


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hiley, Joseph
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Churchill, W. S.
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Morrison, Charles


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Holland, Philip
Murton, Oscar


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Holt, Miss Mary
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Clegg, Walter
Hordern, Peter
Neave, Airey


Cockeram, Eric
Hornby, Richard
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Cooke, Robert
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Coombs, Derek
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Normanton, Tom


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Onslow, Cranley


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, John
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Costain, A. P.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Crouch, David
Iremonger, T. L.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Crowder. F. P.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Parkinson, Cecil


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
James, David
Percival, Ian


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James
Jessel, Toby
Pink, R. Bonner


Dean, Paul
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Dixon, Piers
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Drayson, G. B.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Proudfoot, Wilfred


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kershaw, Anthony
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Dykes, Hugh
Kilfedder, James
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kimball, Marcus
Raison, Timothy


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Emery, Peter
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Redmond, Robert


Eyre, Reginald
Kinsey, J. R.
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Farr, John
Kirk, Peter








Rees, Peter (Dover)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Waddington, David


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Ridsdale, Julian
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Ward, Dame Irene


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Stokes, John
Warren, Kenneth


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Weatherill, Bernard


Rost, Peter
Sutcliffe, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Russell, Sir Ronald
Tapsell, Peter
White, Roger (Gravesend)


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wiggin, Jerry


Scott, Nicholas
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Wilkinson, John


Sharples, Richard
Tebbit, Norman
Winterton, Nicholas


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Simeons, Charles
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Sinclair, Sir George
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Worsley, Marcus


Skeet, T. H. H.
Tilney, John
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Younger, Hn. George


Soref, Harold
Trew, Peter



Speed, Keith
Tugendhat, Christopher
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Spence, John
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Mr. Hamish Gray and


Sproat, Iain
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Mr. Michael Jopling.


Stainton, Keith

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Eight o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and the Orders [11th April and this day], to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Eight o'clock.

Orders of the Day — Clause 2

Orders of the Day — THE RESIDUAL SUBSIDY

Amendment made: No. 1, in page 3, line 11,leave out from 'authority' to 'and' in line 13 and insert 'under any enactment'.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 3

Orders of the Day — THE HOUSING EXPENDITURE SUBSIDY AND ASSOCIATED RATE FUND CONTRIBUTION.

Amendments made: No. 5, in page 4, line 20, leave out 'the'.

No. 6, in line 24, leave out 'such'.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 4

Orders of the Day — THE HIGH COST SUBSIDY AND ASSOCIATED RATE FUND CONTRIBUTION

Amendments made: No. 10, in page 7. line 3, after 'for', insert 'that year or'.

No. 11, in line 22, at end insert:
'or, as the case may be, that sum as varied by an order under subsection (7) below.'.

No. 12, in line 24, after 'subsidy'. insert 'for any year'.

No. 13, in line 30, at end insert:
'together with an amount equal to the amount which would have been carried to the credit of the housing revenue account under paragraph 1(5) of Schedule 4 to this Act for that year if no high cost subsidy had been payable to the authority for that year or any previous year.'.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 10

Orders of the Day — THE HIGH COST SUBSIDY

Amendments made: No. 18, in page 13, line 40, after 'for', insert 'that year or'.

No. 19, in page 14, line 34, leave out from 'words' to end of line 36 and insert:
'from "amount determined" to the end there shall be substituted the words "sum referred to in subsection (2)(a) above or, as the case may be, that sum as varied by an order under subsection (5A) below";'.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 14

Orders of the Day — PROVISIONS AS TO CERTAIN ORDERS

Amendment made: No. 20, in page 16, line 34, at end insert:
'and with any local authority with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable'—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 16

Orders of the Day — RENT ALLOWANCES

Amendment made: No. 21, in page 17, line 40, at end insert:
(4A) A person is also a private tenant it he occupies a house let to him by the Crown


Estate Commissioners and his tenancy would be a protected tenancy but for section 4 of the Act of 1971.—[Mr. Cordon Campbell.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 17

Orders of the Day — THE MODEL SCHEMES

Amendments made: No. 22, in page 18, line 9, at end insert:
'and with any local authority with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable'

No. 23, in line 29, at end insert:
'otherwise than under subsection (1) or (2) of section 18 of this Act'.

No 24, in line 33, after 'period', insert:
otherwise than under subsection (1) or (2) of section 18 of this Act'.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 22

Orders of the Day — INTERPRETATION OF PART II

Amendment made: No. 27, in page 22, line 15, leave out 'paragraph 17(5)' and insert:
'sub-paragraphs (4A) and (5) of paragraph 17'.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 2

Orders of the Day — COMPUTATION OF REBATES AND ALLOWANCES

Amendments made: No. 28, in page 66, line 11, leave out'child undergoing training by any person' and insert 'person undergoing training'.

No. 29, line 13, leave out 'the child' and insert 'he'.

No. 30, in line 17, leave out ' "husband" '.

No. 31, in line 20, leave out 'and subject to paragraphs 4 and 5 below'.

No. 32, in line 25, leave out sub-paragraph (2).

No. 33, in line 41, after first 'for', insert 'or collected in'.

No. 35, in page 67, line 5, leave out from 'tenant' to end of line 11 and insert
'and the authority have grounds for considering that in the special circumstances of the case it would be reasonable to make their calculations under this Schedule by reference to the income of that other person and not of the tenant, they may treat that other person as the

tenant and make such payments of rebate or allowance (if any) as ought to be made on that basis.
(2) Where an authority exercise the power conferred on them by sub-paragraph (1) above, the tenant shall be treated as a non-dependant forthe purposes of this Schedule, but neither the spouse nor a dependent child of the person who is treated as the tenant shall be treated as a non-dependant for those purposes.
5A. In the following provisions of this Schedule "tenant" includes a person treated as a tenant under paragraph 4 or 5 above or paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 below'.

No. 36, in line 19, leave out '£9·50' and insert '£10·50'.

No. 37, in line 20, leave out '£13·50' and insert '£14·75'.

No. 38, in line 22, leave out '£13·50' and insert '£14·75'.

No. 39, in line 23, leave out '£2·50' and insert '£2·75'.

No. 40, in line 26, leave out '£10·75' and insert '£11·75'.

No. 41, in line 27, leave out '£14·75' and insert '£16·00'.

No. 42 in line 29, leave out '£14·75' and insert '£16·00'.

No. 43, in line 30, leave out '£15·50' and insert '£16·75'.

No. 44, in line 40, leave out from 'income' to end to line 42.

No. 45, in page 68, line 4, at end insert:
(cc) any sums payable under section 49 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962 (financial assistance for education);.

No. 49, in page 70, line 10, leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
(b) for each person in receipt of supplementary benefit … … … £0·70;.

No. 51, in line 14, leave out '£1·00' and insert '£0·70'.

No. 53, in line 16, leave out '£1·50' and insert '£0·70'.

No. 56, in line 37, at beginning insert 'the whole or'.

No. 58, in page 71, line 21, leave out from 'to' to 'to' in line 22 and insert:
'consider whether they ought in all the circumstances to treat the rent as reduced by an appropriate amount, and if in their opinion they ought to treat it is reduced,'.

No. 59, in line 37, leave out 'and 13' and insert '13, 14 and 16'.

No. 60, in page 72, line 9, after 'disregarding', insert:
'to the extent mentioned in paragraph 8(3) of this Schedule'.

No. 61, in line 10, leave out from 'income' to end of line 12.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 3

Orders of the Day — REBATES AND ALLOWANCES: PROCEDURE

Amendments made: No. 62, in page 72, line 36, after first 'for'. Insert 'or collected in'.

No. 63, in page 73, line 7, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert:
(4) In the following provisions of this Schedule 'tenant' includes, subject to paragraph 15(3C) below, a person treated as a tenant under this paragraph or paragraph 4 or 5 of Schedule 2 above.

No. 64, in line 17, after "allowance', insert:
'whether before or after their rebate scheme or allowance scheme comes into operation'.

No. 65, in line 28, leave out 'tenant of his' and insert 'applicant of the'

No. 66, in line 30, leave out 'in his and insert 'of'.

No. 67, in line 32, leave out 'tenant' and insert 'applicant'.

No. 68, in line 43, leave out 'tenant and of any spouse of the tenant' and insert: 'applicant and of any spouse of his'.

No. 69, in page 74, line 19, leave out 'and to paragraph 11(2) of this Schedule'.

No. 70, in page 75, line 3, leave out 'tenant' and insert 'applicant'.

No. 71, in line 5, leave out 'tenant' and insert 'applicant'.

No. 72, in line 38, leave out paragraph 7.

No.73, in line 45, at end insert:
8A. It shall not be the duty of an authority to alter a rebate or allowance under paragraph 5, 6 or 8 above if the alteration would be equal to or less than 20 new pence.

No. 74, in page 76, line 28, at end insert:

Transitional

10A. Where—
(a) the whole or part of a person's rent under a tenancy was inet by a rebate for the rental period immediately preceding that in which the rebate scheme under this Act of the authority who granted him that rebate comes into operation; and

(b) the terms on which the rebate was granted for that rental period are identical with those on which rebates are to be granted under the rebate scheme under this Act,

the authority may treat him, for all the purposes of this Schedule or Schedule 2 to this Act, as if he were a person to whom they had granted under this Act a rebate for the first rental period after the rebate scheme under this Act came into operation.

No. 75, in line 37, leave out sub paragraph (2).

No. 76, in page 77, line 22, at end insert:
'or in excess of the amount which is for the time being recoverable under Schedule 13 to the Act of 1971 or under Schedule 6 to this Act'.

No. 77, in page 78, line 19, at end insert:
'and if they alter or confirm it they shall notify the tenant in writing of their reasons for doing so'.—[Mr. Cordon Campbell.]

Amendment proposed: No. 79, in page 78, line 21, at end insert—
(3A) When an authority determine to treatas the tenant, in pursuance of paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 above, a person who is not the tenant within the meaning of section 22 of this Act, it shall be their duty to notify of that determination both the person who will fall to be treated as the tenant as a result of the determination and the person who would have been considered eligible for a rebate or an allowance but for the determination.
(3B) When an authority determine to treat as the tenant, in pursuance of paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 above or paragraph 1 of this Schedule, a person who is not the tenant or, as the case may be, not the sole tenant, within the meaning of section 22 of this Act, it shall be their duty to notify of that determination the person who will fall to be treated as the tenant as a result of it and to take such (if any) steps as they consider reasonable to notify of the determination the person or persons who would have been considered eligible for a rebate or an allowance but for the determination.
(3C) The references to the tenant in sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) above shall accordingly be construed as including every person to whom sub-paragraph (3A) or (3B) above applies.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 228.

Division No. 202.]
AYES
[8.8 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Atkins, Humphrey
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Awdry, Daniel
Bell, Ronald


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Benyon, W.


Astor, John
Batsford, Brian
Berry, Hn. Anthony




Biffen, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Biggs-Davison, John
Haselhurst, Alan
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Blaker, Peter
Havers, Michael
Parkinson, Cecil


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hawkins, Paul
Percival, Ian


Body, Richard
Hayhoe, Barney
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Boscawen. Hn. Robert
Hicks, Robert
Pink, R. Bonner


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hiley, Joseph
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bowden, Andrew
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bray, Ronald
Holland, Philip
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Brewis, John
Holt, Miss Mary
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hordern, Peter
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hornby, Richard
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Raison, Timothy


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bryan, Sir Paul
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk. N.)
Redmond, Robert


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)




Buck, Antony
Hunt, John
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Burden, F. A.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Iremonger, T. L.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Carlisle, Mark
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
James, David
Ridsdale, Julian


Chapman, Sydney
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rost, Peter


Churchill, W. S.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Russell, Sir Ronald


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Scott, Nicholas


Clegg, Walter
Kershaw, Anthony
Sharples, Richard


Cockeram, Eric
Kilfedder, James
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Cooke, Robert
Kimball, Marcus
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Coombs, Derek 
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Simeons, Charles


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick




Cormack, Patrick
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Sinclair, Sir George


Costain, A. P.
Kinsey, J. R.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Crouch, David
Kitson, Timothy
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Crowder, F. P.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Soref, Harold


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Knox, David
Speed, Keith


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lambton, Lord
Spence, John


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James
Lamont, Norman
Sproat, Iain


Dean, Paul
Lane, David
Stainton, Keith


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dixon, Piers
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Drayson, G. B.
Le Merchant, Spencer
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Dykes, Hugh
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Stokes, John


Eden, Sir John
Loveridge, John
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Luce, R. N.
Sutcliffe, John


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Tapsell, Peter


Emery, Peter
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Eyre, Reginald
McLaren, Martin
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Farr, John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Fell, Anthony
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)
Tebbit, Norman


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Fidler, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Maddan, Martin
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Madel, David
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marten, Neil
Tilney, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mather, Carol
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Fortescue, Tim
Maude, Angus
Trew, Peter


Fowler, Norman
Mawby, Ray
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fox, Marcus
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Gardner, Edward
Miscampbell, Norman
Waddington, David


Gibson-Watt, David
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Walker-Smith. Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Ward, Dame Irene


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Moate, Roger
Warren, Kenneth


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Molyneaux, James
Weatherill, Bernard


Goodhart, Philip
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Well, John (Maidstone)


Goodhew, Victor
Monro, Hector
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Gorst, John
Montgomery. Fergus
Wiggin, Jerry


Gower, Raymond
More, Jasper
Wilkinson, John


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Winterton, Nicholas


Green, Alan
Morrison, Charles
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mudd, David
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Grylls, Michael
Murton, Occar
Woodnutt, Mark


Gummer, J. Selwyn
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Worsley, Marcus


Gurden, Harold
Neave, Airey
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Younger, Hn. George


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael



Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Normanton, Tom
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. Hamish Gray and


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Mr. Michael Jopling.







NOES


Abse, Leo
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Oakes, Gordon


Albu, Austen
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
O'Halloran, Michael


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
O'Malley, Brian


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Oram, Bert


Armstrong, Ernest
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Orbach, Maurice


Ashley, Jack
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Oswald, Thomas


Ashton, Joe
Hamling, William
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth. Sutton)


Atkinson, Norman
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Padley, Walter


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hardy, Peter
Paget, R. T.


Barnes, Michael
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Palmer, Arthur


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hattersley, Roy
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Baxter, William
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hilton, W. S.
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Horam, John
Pavitt, Laurie


Bidwell, Sydney
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pentland, Norman


Bishop, E. S.
Huckfield, Leslie
Perry, Ernest G.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Prescott, John


Booth, Albert
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, William (Rugby)


Bradley, Tom
Hunter, Adam
Probert, Arthur


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur (Edge Hill)
Rankin, John


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Janner, Greville
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
John, Brynmor
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Buchan, Norman
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Roderick, CaerwynE.(Br'c'n&amp;'R'dnor)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Roper, John


Cant, R. B.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Rose, Paul B.


Carmichael, Neil
Kaufman, Gerald
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Kelley, Richard
Rowlands, Ted


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Lambie, David
Sandelson, Neville


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Lamborn, Harry
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Lamond, James
Shore,Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Cohen, Stanley
Lawson, George
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Concannon, J. D.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Conlan, Bernard
Leonard, Dick
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lestor, Miss Joan
Sillars, James


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworlh, C.)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Silverman, Julius


Crawshaw, Richard
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Skinner, Dennis


Cronin, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lipton, Marcus
Spriggs, Leslie


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Lomas, Kenneth
Steel, David


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Dalyell, Tam
Mabon, Dr. J. Dlckson
Strang, Gavin


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
McBride, Neil
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McCartney, Hugh
Swain, Thomas


Davis, Terry ([...]romsgrove)
McElhone, Frank
Taverne, Dick


Deakins, Eric
McGuire, Michael
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Mackenzie, Gregor
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Mackintosh, John P.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Dempsay, James
Maclennan, Robert
Tinn, James


Dormand, J. D.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Torney, Tom


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Urwin, T. W.


Driberg, Tom
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Varley, Eric G.


Eadie, Alex
Marks, Kenneth
Wainwright, Edwin


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Marsden, F.
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Marshall. Dr. Edmund
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ellis, Tom
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Wallace, George


English, Michael
Mayhew, Christopher
Watkins, David


Evans, Fred
Meacher, Michael
Weitzman, David


Ewing, Harry
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mendelson, John
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mikardo, Ian
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Foot, Michael
Millan, Bruce
Whitehead, Phillip


Ford, Ben
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Whitlock, William


Forrester, John
Milne, Edward
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Freeson, Reginald
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Woof, Robert


Galpern, Sir Myer
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)



Garrett, W. E.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gilbert, Dr. John
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Mr. James A. Dunn and


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Moyle, Roland
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Gourlay, Harry
Murray, Ronald King

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 80, in page 78, line 33, leave out' are or have been in receipt of supplementary' and insert:

'may be entitled to receive supplementary benefit or are or have been in receipt of such'.

No. 81, in line 34, after 'been', insert 'or may be'.

No. 82, in line 36, leave out 'are or have been in receipt of supplementary' and insert:
'may be entitled to receive supplementary benefit or are or have been in receipt of such.'

No. 83, in page 79, line 31, leave out 'make' and insert 'grant'.

No. 84, in line 33, leave out 'make, or retain from making' and insert: 'grant, or refrain from granting'.

No. 85, in line 47, at end insert:
(4A) Without prejudice to paragraph 16 above, the Secretary of State may give directions to authorities in general or any individual authority or description of authority requiring them in such cases and circumstances as may be specified in the direction to grant a rebate or allowance greater than, or less than, the amount required by or under their scheme, or to grant or refrain from granting, a rebate or allowance where the provisions of the scheme provide otherwise, and to pay to the Secretary of State such amount, to be estimated in such manner as may be so specified, as reflects any liability to give relief to the authority's tenants which is transferred in accordance with the directions from the authority to the Secretary of State.

No. 86, in line 50, leave out from 'amount' to 'above' in line 2 on page 80 and insert:
'which in the opinion of the Secretary of State represents the rebates or allowances which would have been granted but for any arrangements under sub-paragraph (4) or directions under sub-paragraph (4A)'.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 4

Orders of the Day — THE HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT

Mr. Peter Doig: I beg to move Amendment No. 87, in page 82, line 42, leave out from beginning to 'the' in line 43.
I propose here to delete the words
the arrears of rent which have been written off in that year as irrecoverable
I wish to take this course because such a provision has nothing to do with the housing revenue account, bearing in mind that this account's deficit will determine the amount of rent that council tenants will have to pay.
It must be borne in mind that this is a variable item. In some years, such as this one of very high unemployment, there can be large amounts of rent arrears. Officials or other members of the local authority may decide to write off as unlikely to be recovered many of

these sums at the end of the year. First we have debts that accumulate as a result of unpaid rents. Then it is at the discretion of the elected members of the local authority whether they should be written off.
Some officials feel that debts should be written off if in their view they are unlikely to be revovered. Others take the view that the debts should be left in abeyance for a number of years and every possible attempt made to recover the money. The sum therefore fluctuates from year to year and the individuals who decide whether or when to write them off also vary.
Elected councillors often act on the advice of officials of the corporation. An official may decide to hold on to debts for a number of years, but he may retire and the official taking his place may decide to clear the books of all old debts and start afresh. A substantial sum can be written off in this way and if this sum is to increase the housing revenue deficit in any one year, because the housing revenue account must balance under this legislation, larger rent increases will have to take place. In other words there will be rent increases which would not otherwise occur.
It sometimes happens—this happens in my constituency—that a number of houses remain unlet for some time. This uncollected money could increase the housing revenue deficit considerably, which makes all the more reason for deleting this provision when calculating the housing revenue account. The Minister can best remove this anomaly by accepting the Amendment and so prevent tenants from suffering unnecessary rent increases.

Mr. Younger: I appreciate the problem which the hon. Gentleman has outlined. It exercises the minds of local authorities from time to time, but I do not entirely agree with his idea of the best way of dealing with it.
Paragraph (2)(d) of the Schedule provides that written-off arrears of rent and income lost as a result of unlet property should be treated as an item of expenditure on the housing revenue account. We consider that these costs are legitimately part and parcel of a local authority's costs of managing its housing stock and should therefore be borne in the normal


way on the housing revenue account, which is where all the normal costs of managing the stock of houses that the local authority holds are carried. What the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) is suggesting would be a change not merely in the Bill but also in current practice, where this is a normal charge on the housing revenue account.
There are, however, two other factors which the hon. Gentleman might like to bear in mind which will be changed by the Bill and which I believe make a stronger case for leaving the provision as it is. The first is that having a universal national rent rebate scheme will, by protecting tenants more comprehensively over the country as a whole, generally speaking make it less likely to have arrears of rents as a result of people being unable to pay. This will never be eliminated. I merely say that it will be less likely than before. That is one factor which leads one to suggest that the present system of carrying this on the housing revenue account is reasonable.
The second new factor is that as the costs of these arrears of rent or "voids", as they are known, are borne on the housing revenue account as part of the normal management costs of managing the authority's stock of houses, they will be eligible for housing expenditure subsidy. Thus, to the extent that an authority may have a higher number of arrears of rents or empty houses than it would like to have, it will increase the increase of expenses on the housing revenue account, which will tend to raise its costs in that year compared with the previous year over the threshold, and this will bring it into the housing expenditure subsidy.
Therefore, whereas at present the cost of voids is borne entirely on the housing revenue account and, in so far as that is passed on as a deficit to the rate fund, entirely by the ratepayers, in future it will at least for the first time be subsidised to some extent, assuming that the authority concerned qualifies for housing expenditure subsidy.

Mr. James Dempsey: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that at present irrecoverable arrears of rent are borne not only by the tenant but by the tenant plus the ratepayer but that under the new system, as the tenant must meet the whole cost

for the year, rent arrears will become fully borne by the rent payer, the tenant? Is that really fair?

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Younger: I see the point the hon. Gentleman is making but it is not quite correct as he puts it. The present position is that with the cost of this landing as it does on the housing revenue account, one can argue that it falls on the other tenants, because their rents have to be geared to some extent at any rate to correspond to the burdens on the housing revenue account; but one can also argue that in so far as all housing revenue accounts are supported by the rates, the cost falls on ratepayers. It all depends on the portion to which one assigns it.
But we can say this about the present system. All these costs to which we are referring are borne by the inhabitants of the local authority, either ratepayers or rent payers, and in some cases both. In future that will not be so because, for the first time, at least some of the cost will be subsidised by the Government, when expenditure rises by over £6 per house in one year compared with the previous year.
With respect to the hon. Member for Dundee, West, I believe that the right way would be to leave the costs of voids as they have always been, a charge on the housing revenue account. We should also bear in mind that the rent rebate scheme will make it less likely for needy tenants to fall into arrears of rent and that, for the first time, we have subsidisation by the Government paying some part of the cost of voids.

Mr. Eadie: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's argument about what the Government are doing. On the rent rebate scheme, 25 per cent. is being met by the general body of ratepayers. But the hon. Gentleman has the figures available and he should confess that about £6½ million will have to be met by ratepayers, a sum which was previously met by the Exchequer in payments to people receiving supplementary pensions. That £6½million is taken from the general ratepayer. How can the hon. Gentleman talk about this as a gift from the Exchequer when that sum is being taken from ratepayers and is a sum that they did not pay previously?

Mr. Younger: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is quite correct in that particular point. I could also add another factor which points in the opposite direction but which is again not strictly relevant, and that is that at present the entire cost of rent rebates is borne by local authority ratepayers or tenants. In future the Government will pay at least 75 per cent. The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that 25 per cent. is being carried by ratepayers. That is true and it is a valid point, but it is not the point being argued here, which is that the cost of voids and rent arrears should be transferred for the first time from the housing revenue account to the ratepayer directly. I am arguing that although I appreciate that argument, it is much better to leave it with the housing revenue account in view of the two factors I have outlined.

Mr. Doig: Does the Minister recall that part of the Bill states that the housing revenue account has to be balanced as nearly as possible, neither too much nor too little, neither profit nor loss. He agreed with this earlier. Can he visualise a year in which a great many housing debts are written off? Presuming—though this is unlikely—that the Government can stabilise the cost of living, rent, and so on, he will be faced with a situation of raising rent one year because of this extraneous item but reducing it the following year once the extraneous item has disappeared.

Mr. Younger: That could happen but it is a somewhat unreal example, as to have the effect described there would have to be no other factors involved. But in the very extraordinary situation that the hon. Gentleman has outlined, that is what could happen. In general, in almost all authorities there would be all sorts of other factors which would have this effect. If an authority faced an unusually high amount of rent arrears, for all sorts of reasons, such as a high level of unemployment, it would fall as an increased burden on the housing revenue account, and for the first time, in so far as it represents an increase on the previous year's expenditure, it would be subsidisable through the housing expenditure subsidy. To that extent the local authority will get more help than it does now.

Mr. Strang: The Under-Secretary said earlier that the number of those in arrear

is likely to be reduced because of the rent rebate scheme. He then accepted that the amount of arrears will vary from area to area because, for instance, of high unemployment in areas such as the West of Scotland, or Clydebank. For months we have hammered away in an attempt to convince the Government that it is nonsense to have a uniform rebate scheme. The Under-Secretary has implied that it would be sensible to give local authorities freedom to have a rent rebate scheme appropriate to the level of unemployment in their areas.

Mr. Younger: That shows that one should not give examples in one's argument. The background to what the hon. Gentleman says is correct, namely, that the universal national rent rebate scheme will—which it does not do now, because there is not one—protect an area which suddenly comes into a high level of unemployment through no fault of its own. The universal national rent rebate scheme will protect tenants from the cost of the rebate falling on local authority people either as ratepayers or tenants. Now the major part of the cost will fall on the Government in the form of at least three-quarters of the cost of the rent rebate scheme.
My example was probably not a good one. I amend it and say that, if a local authority area has an unusually high number of rent arrears for any particular reason in a year, it will in future have the protection of the rent rebate scheme; and in so far as it represents an increased cost on the housing revenue account the authority will have the help of the housing expenditure subsidy.
I hope that the House will not accept the Amendment, although I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's reasons for tabling it.

Mr. Dempsey: I follow the Minister's arguments, but to what extent has he assembled his facts accurately? Only a few weeks ago I received a long circular containing details of rent owed by tenants to Coatbridge Town Council. The total is the highest known in the history of the town, although a rent rebate scheme is in operation and even with supplementary payments on social security to those who are unfortunately unemployed. Unfortunately this state of affairs applies throughout local authorities in the West of Scotland.
If the tenant is to be asked to pay not only his own rent but, in addition, the annual Government subsidy and the annual rate burden, is it not unfair that he should be asked to pay the arrears burden of other people? The tenant does not do that now. It is wrong to say that when it is a charge on the housing account the tenant pays that, because at present the tenant gets the rate subsidy and the Government subsidy. When the Bill is enacted, there will be no rates contribution and no subsidy contribution. In addition, the tenant is to be asked to pay the irrecoverable rent arrears which have arisen as a result of defaulting tenants.

Mr. Eadie: I hope my hon. Friend will not forget that, in addition, the ratepayers in Coatbridge, for example, must pay a proportion of the £6½ million that was previously met by the Exchequer.

Mr. Dempsey: I am coming to the rateable contribution. The Minister has made great play of the fact that Government will be paying 75 per cent. and the local authority only 25 per cent. of the rent rebates cost. He has overlooked the fact that town and county councils will also bear the cost of administration of the rebate scheme. Nobody has yet been able to assess what the costs of administration will be. No town or county clerk to whom I have spoken has been able to hazard a guess. Thus local authorities will pay 25 per cent. of the cost plus the administrative cost, which will be considerable if the appropriate individuals are to take advantage of the scheme.
Apart from the valid point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), wages, salaries and the cost of materials will continue to rise year after year. This will be another burden on the shoulders of ratepayers. In all the circumstances it is unfair that tenants who are about to pay rent plus Government subsidy plus rateable contribution on the house are to be asked to pay, in addition, the rents of defaulting tenants.

Mr. Ross: This is a simple point and I am surprised that the Government are seized of it. The background to it is that there are a number of people who cannot and who do not pay their rents and whose rents must be written off as irrecoverable. The background to the

Bill is that rents are rising. There are about 1 million local authority houses in Scotland. By the end of the next financial year rents will have risen on average by about £50 a year. Therefore, an extra £50 million must be found somehow. The rents are going up by that amount. The chances are that if there are irrecoverable debts they will be very much greater.
Despite what the hon. Gentleman says about the national rent rebate scheme, he is flying in the face of the facts. Most local authority houses in Scotland are already covered by rebate schemes; the figure is about 95 per cent. Some of them are even more generous than the Government's proposed scheme. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman used a very poor argument.
Looking at the calculation of the rents, it is clear that the rent must cover the housing revenue account; it must make up any deficit year to year. The tenants who have been paying their rent will have responsibility, under the law, for making up annually the cost of the debts. That is basic to the Bill. Is it fair? The Minister says that people will be relieved to a certain extent simply because of the rebate scheme. Twenty-five per cent. of the rebate scheme, together with the whole of the administration costs, will be paid by the ratepayer. The present burden—and someone suggested that £6¼ million is borne by the taxpayer through the cost of the social services—will be transferred to the ratepayer.
I wish that we had been able to deal with all these points, but we have been denied that opportunity. We have been working under a guillotine. We have not debated the question of the housing expenditure subsidy. It does not begin to work until after an expenditure of £6 per house or any other figure which the Secretary of State may decide to introduce later. I wish that we had been able to debate the rebate scheme, which will affect a tremendous number of people in Scotland. Not one of our Amendments on it has been called because of the guillotine.
8.45 p.m.
In view of the size of the rent increases, people will still be paying higher rents even with the rebate scheme. That applies equally to private tenants, although we are not concerned with them


in this debate. I am sure that the rent arrears which must be written off as irrecoverable will be greater, which means that the burden of the increase on those who live in local authority houses will be greater. This is basically unfair for the simple reason that housing, if we construe it as part of commercial enterprise of a local authority, is run for the whole community. If the burden is not to be borne by the taxpayer, it should be borne by the general body of ratepayers and not by a particular section.
That is our basic point. I do not wish to labour it because we are pressed for time. I wished that we had time to vote, but we have not. If the Minister has a sudden access of wisdom and decides to accept our Amendment, which he could do without upsetting the apple cart of the Scottish Office—and, after what the Secretary of State said, he would not even notice it—I can assure him that it will be welcome on this side of the House and it will make an improvement in the Bill from the point of view of equity.

Mr. Younger: With leave, may I say that I cannot change my view. Neither the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) nor the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) is right in saying that the rent payer will have to carry not only the cost caused by people who do not pay their rent but the Government subsidy and that there will be no Government contribution. There will be a very considerable Government contribution. There will be a Government contribution on the housing expenditure subsidy for all local authorities whose costs increase by over £6 per house per year in the housing revenue account. Virtually all authorities will qualify for this subsidy. It is therefore not true to say that the rent payer will have to take over the Government contribution. We know from the Bill that the Government contribution will increase and, in particular, it will help ratepayers through the housing expenditure subsidy.
I can appreciate the arguments, but I do not think it would be wise to change the procedure. It is much better to leave the matter as it always has been; namely, a charge on the housing revenue

account. I ask the House not to accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — Clause 28

Orders of the Day — RENTS TO BE CHARGED SO AS TO BALANCE HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT

Mr. Younger: I beg to move Amendment No. 88, in page 25, line 37, leave out 'in' and insert:
'as to be credited to the housing revenue account under'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): With this Amendment it will be convenient to take the two following Amendments.

Mr. Younger: These are drafting Amendments which are intended to clarify the intention of subsection (1) The subsection contains the general requirement that for each financial year standard rents should be charged at a level such that the income receivable from them, together with the other income to the housing revenue account, including subsidies, meets the expenditure on the new account without a rate fund contribution other than that associated with the new housing expenditure and high-cost subsidies.
The reference to "specified" income and expenditure could, however, cause some confusion. The three Amendments are intended, therefore, to ensure that the reference to income and expenditure specified in Schedule 4 is restricted to such income and expenditure as is properly credited or debited to the housing revenue account.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 89, in page 25, line 40, after 'Schedule', insert 'and'.

No. 90, in line 41, leave out 'in that Schedule' and insert:
'as to be debited to that account under that Schedule and'.—[Mr. Younger.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 29

Orders of the Day — PROVISIONS AS TO RENTS IN 1972–73 AND 1973–74

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move Amendment No.


92, in page 26, line 29, leave out 'October 1972' and insert 'January 1973'.
Would it be convenient, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to take at the same time the following three Amendments:
No. 93, in page 26, line 33, leave out '£24' and insert '£8'.
No. 94, in page 26, line 39, leave out '£50' and insert '£34'.
No. 95, in page 26, line 44, at end insert—
(1A) The Secretary of State may at the request of a local authority or on his own initiative in respect of any or all local authorities empower them by order to treat the provisions of subsection (1) of this section—
(a) as having effect with such modifications, exceptions and adaptations as may be specified in the order;
(b) as not having effect.
They are all related, and we could have one debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If that is agreeable to the House, I have no objection.

Mr. Brown: This is a fairly important group of Amendments, but we will probably have to settle for one Division because of the shortage of time. I shall begin with a personal word to the Under-secretary. I do not say it in any sense of recrimination but I believe that we have been conned in the Business Committee in the timetable to which we have agreed. I will be generous and say that I do not think the Under-Secretary realised, any more than we did, what we were agreeing to.
As it has worked out, the bulk of the Amendments were for discussion in the first part of the time allocated and this was totally inadequate. Obviously I cannot criticise Mr. Speaker but I have certainly learned something the hard way. I agreed to a business timetable without knowing the enormous number of Amendments that the Government were putting down or that the new Clauses would take up the whole of the afternoon to deal with the Government's failures in Committee. I admit my share of the guilt or responsibility in agreeing to the proposal but I hope that the Undersecretary will do likewise.

Mr. Doig: He took advantage of it.

Mr. Brown: I will let the matter go at that. I have recorded my share of the blame.
These Amendments are very important. Amendment No. 92, which would change the date of operation of the first increase from 1st October this year until 1st January, 1973, and the consequential Amendments would scale down the amounts that are required under the provisions of the Bill. I am quite sure that the Minister and all hon. Members have understood the point and therefore I must argue for the general principle of delay in bringing the Bill into operation.
I would not presume to speak for Glasgow but the Amendments are linked to the general mood of many local authorities about the non-implementation of the Bill. They are absolutely right in saying that they intend doing nothing until the Bill becomes an Act. I do not believe that is an unreasonable attitude and I do not believe that even the Minister could fault them for it. The unfortunate consequence of it, however, is that local authorities will presumably be compelled by October at the latest, under the Bill as drafted, to find the additional £24 income and that is one of the things we are seeking to change in our Amendments.
I should like the Under-Secretary to listen to some of the reasons why local authorities have adopted the attitude they have. I am sure he will recognise that the attitude in Glasgow is not unreasonable, especially in the light of the other resentments that have been built up against the Government and which I do not have the time to discuss now. Because of them it is not unreasonable for local authorities which feel strongly about their loss of power to express their determination not to anticipate the Bill becoming an Act of Parliament. When will it become an Act of Parliament? Not before July at the earliest, I suspect. Perhaps the Minister will say whether that is a fair guess.
Does the Minister understand the situation in a large local authority such as Glasgow? July is a holiday month. There are no meetings and very little is done. Staff are away and officials are extremely busy. It has been a regular annual source of complaint that, because of the arrangements for the financial year in local government, officials are tied up with accounts and estimates during the holiday month of July in


order to prepare for August and September. There is, therefore, a genuine difficulty of administration in a large local authority in getting down to the job of seeing how the Bill will operate.
If a circular is issued, presumably it will go out in July. In addition to their normal pressure of business at this time of year, therefore, officials will have to work out the implications, arrange publicity and do all the work necessary for transferring from the existing rebate system to the Government's rebate system on 1st October. What is more, they will have to prepare for and organise the introduction of the rent allowance scheme in January. All in all, they will be very busy.
On top of that, there is a general feeling that the Government are asking the big authorities to do too much too soon. Glasgow has 150,000 council houses. There are eight amenity groups—I support this idea—and in just one group there are 29 different sizes and types of house, while in the other seven there are 95 different sizes and types.
The Minister knows what has happened in the past when a big authority—even Saltcoats can do it, and that is not a big authority—has gone through the motions of reviewing rents from time to time, in accordance with the classic phrase. When there are 150,000 council houses it is easy to put up schemes, for the committee to take them away for examination, to remit them back to officials for further consideration and so on. Anyone in democratic government, local or national, knows the opportunities for delay if one wants to find reasons for it. The present Government are as good at it as any other.
There is, therefore, a mixture of genuine reasons and other opportunities which will lead to local authorities finding themselves in real difficulty by 1st October and still not being in a position to implement the Bill.
What will the Minister do? I do not wish to anticipate Clause 71 and the default powers. I have to watch what I am saying here because I think that, if I had been a member of Glasgow Corporation, I should not have made any declarations about what I would do regarding implementation or non-

implementation. My position would have simply been "Until the Bill becomes an Act, I shall say nothing".
There will be three months, or even less perhaps, to do all that the Bill requires, and I reckon that it will be impossible for a big authority to do justice to the job and keep within reason its efforts to ensure that no individual rent goes over the permitted maximum.
9.0 p.m.
There is a real difficulty here which such local authorities will have to face. The Minister might say that it is of their own choosing but that is unreasonable, bearing in mind the principle, which I think is right, that we do nothing until this Bill becomes an Act. It seems to place at least some obligation on the Minister to attempt to understand the dilemma of a local authority like Glasgow.
The temptation, if the Act is to be adhered to in the time suggested, is to put on the £24 per house right across the board. I am sure that the Minister is with me. In other words, there will not be time to examine the 100-odd sizes and types of houses. To get the additional £24 per house, the additional income the Bill requires, though we are suggesting that should be amended, the temptation will be to slap on a straight increase of the same amount on every tenant. That would not be desirable. It is right, given the amenity groups and the various considerations that are to be taken into account, that local authorities should try and work out whether it is right or fair that the same increase should be put on to the tenants in Easter house, Castle milk or Chapeltown. Perhaps we should, as we have done in the past, put more on to some of the high amenity groups that everyone wants to get into.
I am not exaggerating when I say that I know there are genuine and practical difficulties facing an authority like Glasgow. First, I want an indication from the Minister whether it is reasonable, if the Bill goes through in July, to send out a circular to local authorities saying, "Do this, that or the other." We are now dealing with the practicalities of the situation. When does the Minister expect the Bill to receive Royal Assent? How soon after that will he send out his circulars?
By 1st October such authorities will be in breach of the law. What will the Minister do? I know that this is related to Clause 71 but it is relevant to the Amendment which I have moved. We are entitled to get some kind of major concession. The Minister referred to the fact that I was successful in getting an Amendment accepted in Committee. I am not too confident that he will accept any of these Amendments. At least he had better realise—this is as near a threat as I shall get—that he is on a sticky wicket.
I am not criticising my colleagues in the Glasgow Corporation. They have shown their hand. They have said in advance "We will not implement the Bill." There will be a lot of talking about that, but if I had been in charge of the political tactics of any of the big authorities I should have approached the matter like this: "What is the way we can get round this? What is the way in which we can challenge the Government?" Without taking the argument on to the nonsense about law and order, I would not reckon to expect a local authority of Glasgow's size with such a complex rent structure to do all this work and rent rebates and rent allowances in a matter of a few months at the busiest time of the year in local government. It is quite unreasonable.
I hope the Minister recognises that there will be many of us in Glasgow who are genuinely arguing that the postponement of the date as suggested in the Amendment is not unreasonable. It is on these matters that I hope the Minister will at least give us an indication of some understanding of the problems facing particularly the big authorities.

Mr. Baxter: When is my hon. Friend coming to the threat that he said he intended to make?

Mr. Brown: The Under-Secretary has the message even if my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter) will not read the reports of our debates in Standing Committee. I thought I had made the point well enough. I do not wish to cast any reflection on the ability of my hon. Friend to absorb my argument, but I am sure that Glasgow and the Under-Secretary have got the message.

Mr. Strang: I am glad to have the opportunity to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown). We have a rather interesting situation in Edinburgh. Prior to May, the local authority was hell bent on implementing the Bill at once. In fact, it wanted to introduce a similar scheme in May. But there was a change at the local elections, and I am pleased to say that the new town council, although not controlled by Labour, is sufficiently dominated by Labour to have been able to decide, although the decision has still to be ratified, to scrap the rent scheme with the increases which the previous council had intended. We all got a great deal of pleasure from that in Edinburgh not only because it will protect the tenants from hardship but because we see the implementation of policies in which we believe and because we can show those who say that voting at local elections does not matter what can be achieved.
The Edinburgh City Labour Party and the Labour group on the town council have done precisely what my hon. Friend the Member for Provan recommended. They propose not to implement the Bill until it has been passed and only then to decide on action. That leaves open the possibility of their telling the Government that if the Government are to give virtually no freedom about how councils fixrents and implement rebate schemes the Government can put in their own people and operate the scheme themselves.
My hon. Friend mentioned the massive build-up of municipal officers required to operate this cumbersome and socially vindictive rebate scheme. There are two local authorities in my constituency. Edinburgh has some experience in this respect, having operated supplementary charges for working sons and daughters for a number of years and having adopted all sorts of dodges and methods to try to extract additional rent from council tenants.
But the other authority, Musselburgh, is a more typical Scottish local authority and it has no experience of such rebate schemes. It will have to impose additional charges on working sons and daughters and even find out the incomes of sons or wives in the house in order to see whether they should be made tenants


so as to decide the rent to be paid. This means finding out whether the son or wife earns more than the present tenant.

Mr. Younger: indicated dissent.

Mr. Strang: I am surprised that the Under-Secretary should shake his head. What else is the point of providing that a local authority may say to a son "You are earning more than your father, and we will therefore calculate the rent or rebate on the basis of your income"? It follows that the authority will have to find out whether anyone in the household is earning more than the present tenant. I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us what the point of this provision is and how it will be operated, unless it is to find out whether someone in the household is earning more than the current tenant.
The main point is that we are trying to stave off these increases, or to modify them in the short term, because they impose real hardship on many people. We are living at a time of unprecedented price inflation. Every day we see prices rocketing. We know that they are rising at the rate of about 10 per cent, per year. They have been doing so for about 18 months, and there is no sign of this process abating. It is anonsense for the Government to talk about trying to contain inflation and to ask groups of workers to modify their wage demands while, at the same time, they are imposing these rent increases so soon and so sharply.
No doubt the Minister will say "It is true that prices have risen and that rents are rising, but people's wages are rising, too." With this housing rent rebate scheme and some of the other means-tested benefits that have been introduced we are moving towards a situation—in some cases we have reached it, and the Bill will certainly exacerbate it—in which wage increases actually make their recipients worse off.
The most recent figures that I have take into account the new national insurance contribution in October, 1972. Let us take the example of a man with three children, aged between 5 and 11, who was earning £18 a week and who receives an increase bringing his wage up to £22 a week. He loses £2·10 family income supplement; his national insurance contribution is increased by 19p; his rate rebate

falls by 41p; his rent is increased from 75p to £1·15; he loses his school meals exemption, and has to pay £1·80. He does not pay tax, and is exempt from health charges, but his loss of benefit is £5·90, making a net loss of £1·90. He is that much worse off than he was before. That is the most appalling and socially vindictive aspect of the Government s approach to this issue, and they have not faced that fact yet. That is why I support the Amendments.
I hope that even at this late date the Government will show a little reasonableness. There is a limit to the degree to which people can be pushed, especially by somebody in the minority. The situation in Scotland, as everybody knows, is that the Government are decisively in the minority both in parliamentary seats and in the control of local authorities. No one says that the Labour Party in Scotland should be able to dictate Government policy, but if democracy means anything it means that a Government which are so much in the minority in a certain country should at least pay some attention to the views of the Opposition and not ride roughshod over them.
We ask the Government, merely as a gesture, to pay some attention to the views of the Scottish people. We ask them not to impose this alien approach, and to accept the Amendments.

Mr. Ewing: I support the Amendments. I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) on explaining in such graphic terms the effect of a £4 a week increase in a person's weekly wage; namely, a reduction of about £2 a week. That is a relevant point in our discussions. These Amendments give the Government the opportunity for a deathbed repentance—the opportunity to reduce the impact that the Bill will have upon rents in Scotland.
I make no apology for attacking hon. Members opposite who earlier this afternoon spoke for 25 or 30 minutes but now, when we are discussing the level of municipal rents and the protection to people's standards of living, are not even present in the Chamber. The Secretary of State now has as much support from his back benches as his parly has in Scotland. It is a disgrace to the Government and an insult to the people of Scotland.
9.15 p.m.
It ought also to be pointed out that the average standard rent in Scotland is £79. The Government seek through this Bill to impose, with effect from 1st October, an increase of a little more than 30 per cent. in one fell swoop. All the appeals for wage restraint, for heeding the public interest, for protecting the less well-off, the weaker sections of the community, will as a result fall on deaf ears. I appeal to the Government in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East. We believe that we are the people representing the electorate in Scotland, not the Government. We are much closer to the electorate who will be affected by this Measure than any Scottish Tory Member.

Mr. Ross: Where are they?

Mr. Ewing: If my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) was not stern enough in his warning, I amplify what he has said. I warn the Government that they are heading for serious trouble if they tread this path. I want the Under-Secretary to give serious thought to what is being said and to take the opportunity presented by these Amendments of reducing the impact of the Bill on the people of Scotland.

Mr. James Sillars: I find Amendment No. 92 extremely attractive and I would have thought that the Government would find it equally attractive. It seeks to postpone a certain event from October, 1972, until January, 1973, which is a date coinciding with our projected entry to the European Community. I say "projected" because we are not there yet. The Government will remember, because they made a contribution to the European movement, that the workers of this country were promised £7 a week in their pay packet after entering the Common Market. It would be the Government backing their hunch if they decided to postpone the implementation of this from October, 1972, until January, 1973. What better guarantee is there to the workers that all that propaganda that poured out from the Government and from European movement sources was the truth and not a pack of lies, as many in the Labour Party said?
With £7 a week extra in their pay packets the people I represent might be prepared to consider further increases in

rents from January, 1973, although by then with the price of beef and other things rising they may want to reconsider their attitude. The Minister should have no problem in bouncing up to the Despatch Box and telling us that Amendment No. 92 is quite acceptable.
I am not entirely happy with the Amendments because I do not like any rent increases, but, given that we are not discussing the principle, simply trying to amend an exceptionally bad Bill, I will support the Amendments. May I suggest that the Government think seriously about accepting them? They would at least enable them to honour one promise, which was that they would reduce rent increases at a stroke. In a sense, coming at this time, they are sensible Amendments. The Government will have to be much more sensible in the next two years than they have been in the period between June, 1970, and now.
The Prime Minister at Question Time this afternoon was decidedly shaky. [Interruption.]We accept that the Government Whip makes those sorts of noises; we appreciate that he has to do so to keep his job. The question of keeping his seat arises later. I thought the Prime Minister was decidedly shaky, and he had good reasons for being so because the Government are running into trouble. Even Conservative economists tell us that we are heading for a balance of payments problem within the next six to nine months. We are already facing massive price increases in certain basic commodities, and we shall continue with exceptionally high unemployment. No one knows better than the Under-secretary that Scottish unemployment will not fall below 100,000 this year or next year. He knows that as well as I do, but he is not in a position to admit it this evening.
We shall face further price inflation because of our entry to the EEC. We have been given a clear indication that British steel will have to rise by about 15 per cent. That will give a tremendous impetus to inflation. In these circumstances the Government will need the co-operation of the working people to get themselves and the country out of the economic and social difficulties facing us. Since June, 1970, the Government have been waging war on the working people, industrially and socially. There is a clear


division now and it is civil war, with the kid gloves on, between the Government and the working people. This is entirely the Government's responsibility. The Bill is yet a further weapon to be used against the working people.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), being a schoolmaster, has done his sums extremely well and has come up with the information that within a short time Scottish tenants will have to produce £50 million more in rents. If this is not waging war on the working people, what is? The Government are waging war on the people from whom they will require co-operation. If they accept these Amendments they will to some extent alleviate the position. If they reject them—and I confidently expect the Government to recommend their supporters to reject them—they will have to be prepared to face the consequences. If they are ready to take £50 million out of the pockets of the Scottish working people they can expect those people and their representatives, both social and political, to use every means at their disposal to put that money back in their pockets through wage increases. There is no other way that the workers can do it.
The Under-Secretary of State represents Ayr, which to some extent is a railway constituency. Is he prepared to tell the railwaymen that they must forgo the 14 per cent. increase while at the same time he is prepared to add 50p a week on their rents every year between now and 1975? Does he honestly think that men labouring under the financial constraints of the moment will be in a responsive mood to that sort of invitation from the Government? If the Government had any sense they would accept these Amendments, but they do not have sense, and by rejecting the Amendments they will be signing their own political death warrant at the next General Election.

Mr. Buchan: I intend to be very brief. So far, this is my only contribution to the Bill. I want to emphasise the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars). I do not think the Government should be under any misapprehension as to what they are doing to the people and how the people are reacting. My hon. Friend spoke of

a "declaration of war" on the workers. That is how the Government's action has been taken.
Just as they are doing in industrial relations, the Government are using the law to provoke a conflict with the locally elected representatives of the people. They are deliberately picking a quarrel, known in advance. The Bill writes in the expectation of a conflict with the local authorities. This is being done against a rapidly rising cost inflation. We are almost at the stage when people will be asking themselves whether they can afford to pay their rent increase or buy a pound of meat. We are getting to the stage where we shall be paying £1 per lb for meat—and £1 is precisely the figure the Government are suggesting for a rent increase Perhaps they assume that the rate of inflation will be so great that the £50 per annum rent increase will not be seen.
Yet rents are precisely where the Government have some control. Elsewhere, costs have gone market mad—not just Common Market mad but "market" mad with a small "m". If they are serious about fighting inflation, the biggest single thing they can do at a stroke is to accept these Amendments, which would immediately relieve the situation.
If they continue on this highly dangerous course, as they are doing in other ways, they will, firstly, create a conflict between Government and people, consciously picking a fight between Government and people, which does no good to democracy, and, secondly, they will be bringing in the law when people resist. When we reach a situation in which the Government find themselves opposed by the local authority representatives, who are saying, as the majority are beginning to say, "We will resist this Bill", it is destructive not only of democracy but of the law itself. The law is brought into contempt in such a situation, which is challenging not only the nature of government but the law itself. We are on a very dangerous course.
Apparently, the hon. Gentleman is ignorant of the proposals in the Bill allied to rents and rebates. Because of the increased rents, he is turning members of family against each other. This was precisely the worst aspect of the means test in the 1930s. Young sons and daughters had to leave home then in


order to protect their parents' wellbeing. That is what is happening under this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) quoted the example of the £18 to £22 increase in wages, leaving a man £1.50 less well off, involving the necessity for a rebate. Hundreds of thousands of families will need rebates. This is increasing the depth of the poverty trap.
In our social welfare the Government have brought back the Speenhamland system of the eighteenth century; in agriculture they have brought back the Corn Laws of the nineteeth century; now they are bringing back the means test of the 1930s. The effect is to create a permanent pool of stagnant poverty.
I ask the Government to consider three things: first the conflict between Government and people, between the Government and the elected representatives of the people; secondly, the law being brought into contempt; thirdly, the hardship being brought to families in the lower income groups. The hon. Gentleman has a means of solving these things at a stroke. One of my hon. Friends used the term "threat", which turned out to mean that the Minister was batting on a sticky wicket. Batsmen on a sticky wicket usually get run out. The Government are going to go out, and damn quick.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Younger: This has really been like old times this evening. Here we are back to the same arguments which we had presented in Committee. Sometimes in Committee I was consoling myself with the thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite in Committee were a very nice bunch of chaps but probably not the best chaps at opposition, and that when we were on the Floor of the House we should hear from hon. Members, even on that side, who would understand the Bill and make some really worth while contributions to the debate. This has been a very amiable debate, but I have rarely heard such a marvellous load of concentrated balderdash as that to which we have been treated on this Bill this evening.
In all sincerity I wonder whether some hon. Gentlemen who have spoken have even read the Bill. I made some notes, quotations of things they said. That is one of the bad habits which the right

hon. Gentleman for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was always talking about in Committee—all this writing down of what is said by the other side. The right hon. Gentleman always refers to it as a bad habit of his. Perhaps it is a good habit when I do it—I do not know—but I made some notes of things said to see whether I might refer to them and what might be done about them.
There was the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) who introduced us to the permanent pool of stagnant poverty.

Mr. Buchan: I said a stagnant pool of permanent poverty.

Mr. Younger: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. That transforms the entire meaning of the whole sentence! I really wonder what country he is living in and where he has been that he can make such over-stated remarks about the Bill.
The hon. Member for Renfrew, West, who was in splendid form this evening, talked about setting family against family and going back to the days of the means test, and all that sort of stuff, and we had the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) talking in a similar vein. Really, what sort of country are they living in? What year are they living in? 1972? I wonder what on earth they have been doing all these past years if they think that this is the sort of country we are living in that measures of that sort could be produced by this Bill or any other Bill of today.
Let us look at what is being done. I am not going to answer the general Second Reading debate speeches—

Hon. Members: Why not?

Mr. Younger: I think it would be wrong of me to answer Second Reading type speeches, but I will answer points made about the Amendments.

Mr. Sillars: On a point of order. You have just heard the Under-Secretary say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that he will not answer general Second Reading speeches on these Amendments. Is not that statement a reflection both on the Chair and on hon. Members on this side who were speaking directly relevantly to the Amendments? Are we not entitled to replies to the points we made?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I took the phrase "Second Reading speeches" as a figure of speech. When speeches are longer than sometimes one may wish them to be one is inclined to refer to them as Second Reading speeches, but I have heard nothing out of order.

Mr. Younger: I enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) very much. I did not mean to imply that I did not enjoy any of the speeches, but I just thought that they were irrelevant.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) made the least irrelevant of the speeches. He actually referred to the Amendments on two or three occasions. I heard him do so. He asked about the timetable for the Bill. It would be unwise for me to forecast now when Parliament will finally complete work on the Bill and ask Her Majesty to give it her Royal Assent. All I can say is that I am confident that the Bill will be passed in good time for all the necessary measures to be taken under the Bill, and I will do all I can to see that it is passed in good time so that everybody concerned can have proper time to do the necessary work involved by it.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that local authorities are talking about not anticipating the Bill. I am not going to anticipate other debates we may have, even during this stage of the Bill, but I will say that of course it is the case that till a Bill is the law of this land we are, none of us, obliged to obey it. If a Bill to change the law is introduced on any subject I do not have to obey it till it is passed and becomes the law of the land. That does not mean that people cannot anticipate, in terms of preparations, in terms of thought and planning, what they will do on the supposition that the Bill will become law.
During the discussions we have had with the local authority associations about this Bill we have been specifically asked on several occasions to introduce various measures under the Bill to make it easier for them to carry out the provisions of the Bill. Many specific points were put to us. One request, an obvious one, which was made to us was, that local authorities which made increases by 1st October last year, 1971, might count

them towards increases they will make after the Bill is law. We were asked to do that, and we have done it. They can use it if they want to, and many are doing so. This is a reasonable way to proceed, and it is helping local authorities to prepare, if they wish to do so, for the application of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said that Edinburgh had changed its plans. I would not presume to comment on what Edinburgh plans to do. It is its area and not mine. Nor have matters been finally ratified. It is all for the Edinburgh Corporation to consider.
Having said that, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has really considered what this change is likely to mean to his constituents, remembering that his view of the Bill is a very one-sided one. It is his view alone—

Mr. Strang: By no means alone.

Mr. Younger: —and, while no doubt he has managed to persuade some of his constituents to adopt his view, it may interest him to know that not all the people of Edinburgh take that view.
Certain figures have been quoted in the Press. On the one hand we are told that the new arrangements will cause hardship. It appears, on the other, that 8,500 of Edinburgh's tenants will under the Bill and new arrangements find themselves paying less rent than before.

Mr. Ross: Deal with the debate.

Mr. Younger: I am replying to the points raised in the debate. The right hon. Gentleman is always telling me to stick to the point. That is what I am doing.
Has the hon. Member told the 8,500 Edinburgh tenants who will be paying less rent that the new arrangements are bad for them? Does he want them to return to paying more rent? A large number of them will be paying less than £1 a week and a considerable number will be paying nothing at all.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I take it that they all live in South Edinburgh.

Mr. Younger: Perhaps that is why the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East has not made this point. I am sure that my hon.


Friend's constituents will be glad to hear this. These people must be worried about the change which is proposed in Edinburgh.
The figures also tell us that 39,000 of Edinburgh's tenants will have to pay more rent, but that 10,000 of them are supplementary benefit recipients. The change is, therefore, immaterial to them because their rent will be paid in full by various means. This leaves the remaining 29,000, and about three-quarters of them will be paying increases of not more than 50p a week.

Mr. Buchan: That is a lot.

Mr. Younger: I have said repeatedly that in my view that is not an unreasonable increase to ask. In any event, it is fundamental to the Bill. We shall not agree about it, but that is the position.
I simply ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East whether he is certain that all his constituents, some of whom will be paying no rent, will be thrilled to bits about the intention of the Edinburgh Corporation to go back on the proposals.
The hon. Gentleman then talked about this business of son against father, father against son and family against family.

Mr. Strang: I did not say that.

Mr. Younger: The provisions in this context are specific and clear. I said in Committee that they would be used only in the most exceptional circumstances. The Amendments which we passed earlier but which, unfortunately, we did not have time to discuss make it even clearer that they are to be used only exceptionally. I have said many times that if any local authority were, as a matter of practice, to use means-testing on anyone other than the householder, I would disapprove of it and do all I could to prevent it.
The object of this proposal is not new. Most rent rebate schemes contain a provision whereby if a local authority thinks that abuse can take place from the point of view of a high earner taking advantage of the rent rebate scheme action can be taken. Is it fair that when two people are living alongside each other, in the same house, one of them should get a small rent rebate and have to struggle along with difficulty while the other, who

has perhaps someone in his family earning very much money, £40 to £50 a week or something like that, should perhaps get a rent rebate as well? Is it fair that those two people should have exactly the same help? Is that equity? I do not think so. It is most unfair. The people concerned consider it unfair. The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) put it most eloquently in Committee, and the hon. Gentleman ought to address himself to this problem.

Mr. Strang: I should like to answer many of the points made by the Minister but I confine myself to one question. The hon. Gentleman has admitted that under the Bill in certain circumstances a local authority will be charging an increased rent not on the basis of the normal tenant but on the basis of someone else, perhaps a son or a wife. In order to do that, it has to get the information. If everyone were asked to complete a form about this, that would at least be an objective and fair way of doing it.
If the hon. Gentleman is saying that that is not so, is he saying that the authority will have to rely upon someone along the street saying "Look, that son is earning a phenomenal amount of money" and that the corporation will check that? Is he saying that there is a subjective way of doing this that will enable the local authority to get information on every household? The hon. Gentleman must face the issue. At every meeting at which I have explained this issue there has been an absolute uproar. The hon. Gentleman must face the fact that if this is to happen, the authority must get the information. How will it get it?

Mr. Younger: I know exactly why there has been an uproar. If I were a member of the audience and the hon. Member explained it to me in that way, I, too, would be in an uproar, because that is not the position. The hon. Gentle man knows that. There is a fall-back provision in the Bill that where there is an outstanding case of abuse the local authority—

Mr. Strang: How does it find out?

Mr. Younger: —will be able to take action. It is not expected or intended, and is totally misleading to suggest, that it will be necessary to take evidence from


families or to get anyone to fill in a form. One of the whole points of the rent rebate scheme and the way it is designed is that it will not be necessary to means-test the whole family. That is one of the things about which we are proud.
I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to agree with me but he could at least ponder upon this. He is quite wrong in thinking that this will happen on any scale. It is only a fall-back and safeguard provision that can be used in cases of outstanding abuse. The support for that is not only on this side of the House. The hon. Member for Dundee, West was very much more eloquent than I am about it. He told us that people jolly well resent this inequity when it happens, and it is time that someone did something about it.

Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman is appearing to make a concession to the House. In the light of what he has said about the extraordinary circumstances, although it is specific in the Bill, may I take it that he will circularise every local authority in Scotland, new towns and the SSHA on precisely the point he has made, that the Clause is to be operated only in exceptional circumstances?

Mr. Younger: Yes, certainly that will be included in the circulars that will be sent out when the Bill is passed.

Mr. Strang: In the same circular, will the hon. Gentleman give local authorities guidance about how they are to locate the cases of abuse? He has not answered that question.

Mr. Younger: I would not commit myself to doing that in the same circular. I can, however, undertake that local authorities will be clearly told how they should implement this and will get every possible advice on the lines of what I have been saying. I have said it in Committee, too, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen will look that up as well.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The Under-secretary fails to appreciate the concern which is felt about this. The major rebate schemes at present—either SSHA or Glasgow Corporation—have a standard allowance for an adult earning any amount. In other words, only if one wants to claim something is it necessary

to provide information about full earnings. Under the Minister's proposals, the gross earnings of every person—[Interuption.] The hon. Gentleman will need to be specific about this. How will he know whether a non-dependent adult is even working unless he asks the question or asks what wages he is receiving? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there will not be such a question on the relevant form?

Mr. Younger: Yes, I am saying that. The hon. Gentleman must have been in the audiences which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East has been turning into uproar by his descriptions of what he thinks will happen. One of the whole points of the scheme, on which we have taken the recommendations of the Brownlie Report, is that it will not be necessary to means-test other members of the family, and there is to be a flat-rate deduction irrespective of their earnings. That is the most important part of the scheme. That is why there will not need to be a declaration of earnings by the son or daughter or anyone else living in the household. I hope that next time the hon. Member for Provan goes to a meeting addressed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East he will take a pair of rose-tinted spectacles with him and listen very carefully indeed.
The hon. Member for Stirling and Fal-kirk Burghs (Mr. Ewing) said that there was no protection in the Bill for the lower paid. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has ever read the Bill through. The Bill is wholly designed to concentrate help on those who earn the smallest amounts of money. That is the whole purpose of the subsidies, as the hon. Gentleman should know by now.

Mr. Ewing: The Under-Secretary has misquoted me. He should write everything down and then perhaps he would get it right. I did not say that. I said that the appeal to trade unionists to have regard to the lower paid would fall on deaf ears because of the need they had to protect themselves against the measures which were being inflicted on them by the Under-Secretary. Has he got that clear now before I sit down?

Mr. Younger: It is about as clear as mud to me. Any trade unionist who is in the lower earning bracket is protected by the rent rebate scheme. If he is in the


higher earning bracket his increase is limited to 50p per week. If the hon. Gentleman can tell me how many of his friends who are trade unionists have had increases of less than 50p a week every year for the last 10 years, I should be interested to know who they are.
I will leave aside the marvellous electoral survey of Scotland as seen by the hon. Members for South Ayrshire and for Renfrew, West. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire has brought his dusty old speech out several times. It is a good hardy annual. It entertains us each time. However, he never gets time to finish it. Perhaps he has lost the last page of it, because that is the page where he goes on to explain that one of the reasons for the number of seats that this side of the House holds in Scotland is that the constituencies were so brilliantly gerrymandered before the last General Election that there are, therefore, deliberately by the hand of his own party less than there should be, as everyone well knows.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look for that last page of his speech because I am sure it will be a good one and that he will be able to put it across very well with his usual energy.

Mr. Sillars: As we are moving into new electoral boundaries, what about a wager between the Under-Secretary and myself about the respective returns as between the Labour and Tory Parties?

Mr. Younger: It would probably be out of order for hon. Members to bet across the Floor of the House. I should not like to have to make a personal statement tomorrow excusing myself, so I will resist the hon. Member's blandishments.
We are discussing a group of Amendments, although from some of the points which have been made it might be wondered whether we have been discussing the Amendments. The points raised by the Amendments, some of which were covered in Committee, are, first, as to Amendment No. 92, to defer the date of the Bill coming into operation. I could not accept that. I accept that there are administrative difficulties to overcome. I was interested in what the hon. Member for Provan said in describing these and I will read his remarks carefully in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Although undoubtedly there will be a great deal of work to be

done, I am certain that it can and will be done, as in the past similar changes have so often been carried out. I am certain that local authority officials will be able to cope with the work.
There is also the point that a delay in the start of the Bill's operations would delay the benefits to be secured under the Bill. There are the ratepayers to be thought of as well. Are we to postpone the benefits to the ratepayers for three months? Is that a popular cry? Of course it is not. The ratepayers want the benefits that will arise under the Bill. They are waiting for the rate burden to be more than halved. I will not be party to delaying that for more than three months.
Then on Amendment No. 93 there is the question of the attempt to reduce £24 to £8. The object of the Amendment is to make a difference in the effect on the ratepayers in the early months. This does not work altogether in the way that the proponents of the Amendment thought, because in some ways this will ensure that local authorities which increase their rents before 1st October will be given credit for so doing—that is the retrospective part of it—but the amounts required to be got in in the next year or two would again have the benefit of delay.
There are two sets of people to consider here, ratepayers and rent payers. They are to some extent the same people, but they are to some extent not the same people. We have the benefits to both to consider as well as their problems which hon. Members opposite are always harping on.
There is, finally, the suggestion in Amendment No. 95 that there should be power for the Secretary of State to exercise a wider measure of discretion. I do not think this will be necessary. I think that the provisions in the Bill are clear and workable. Local authorities concerned will get ample advice and help in implementing these in the normal way. When the full benefits are achieved, it will be simple for local authorities to see, in preparing to implement the Bill, whether they do it immediately or after a little heart-searching, as the hon. Member for Provan described, that it is much to the benefit of the ratepayers and it will give them as local authorities much scope for doing things which they have


not been able to do previously and which they will be very glad to be able to do now. I must ask the House to reject the Amendments.

Mr. Ross: We have to hand it to the Minister. He has a wonderful tactic: seize something which is irrelevant, spend a great deal of time on it and spend as little time as possible on matters which are in order. I have seldom heard—and I hope that you are listening, Mr. Deputy Speaker—a speech more out of order than the right hon. Gentleman's speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman, strictly speaking, can say that. I do not think he means his words to have the effect which they have in my ears.

Mr. Ross: I am saying that I have not heard a speech which was more out of order.
The hon. Gentleman dealt with the question of the rent rebate scheme. He dealt with Amendment No. 35 which, although it is on the Notice Paper, was not debated because of the guillotine. We would have liked to vote on Amendment No. 35, but we had to give up the chance of doing so because of the time which would have been involved. The hon. Gentleman spent exactly four minutes dealing with the four Amendments under discussion. This is an insult to Parliament.
I know that the hon. Gentleman is a fairly young Minister and that this is his first Bill, but the habit which he is acquiring is bad.

Mr. Younger: rose—

Mr. Ross: I cannot give way because we are working against time. The guillotine falls again at 11 o'clock and, whether we like it or not, the debate has been cut by virtue of the hon. Gentleman's speech.
I wish to deal as quickly as possible with the Amendments. We sought to save the Government from themselves. Many changes have taken place in Government policy since they first thought of the Bill and introduced their White Paper, but they have not departed in any way from their proposals for the timing of the Bill.
The first Amendment deals with timing—the imposition of the rent increases on or before 1st October, 1972. The increases must be imposed, and the calculation is related to the amount of money—£24 per house—for the whole of the year 1972–73. But for the local authorities the year 1972–73 starts in May. This Bill is not yet law, and we are in June. The Minister could not say when it will become law, nor can I. But I can tell him that it does not become law when it is passed by this House. According to the last Clause, it becomes law one month after its passing. Therefore, Glasgow and other cities will probably not be functioning as local legislative bodies when it becomes law
I hope that the Minister appreciates the administrative difficulties, of which he made light. They will not be his. All that the Government do is introduce legislation and expect the local authorities to comply. When we suggest "Do not make it run from 1st October; make it 1st January" we are inviting the Government to be fair to the local authorities.
I come to the question of the figure or £24. This concerns the dubious probity of the Government's proposals. The Bill is not yet law and is not likely to become law until, at the earliest, July or August. Between October this year and May next year—six or seven months—local authorities must, by law, collect £24 per house for the whole year, which means an increase of virtually £1 a week because it is concentrated into those months after the Bill becomes law.
If the Minister thinks that that is fair and right, then he stands alone. This is why we sought to change the figures. I suggested in Committee that the Government were creating more difficulties for themselves by this proposal than by anything else in the Bill—and we do not agree with anything else in the Bill. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) that if we had been in the position to do it we would have voted against the principle Clause by Clause. As I have said, we sought to save the Government from themselves and from the difficulties which they are creating for themselves and local authorities.
10.0 p.m.
How can any Government hope to appeal, on the one hand, for co-operation,


saying to the people "We are trying to hold down the price of this, that and the next", while, on the other, by their own decision they put up rents to the very maximum at a time when unemployment will again be rising?
It is no good the Minister referring to the rent rebates. Does he know anything about ordinary Scots people and their attitude to means tests? If he is inclined to scoff at that, let him read the speech of the present Prime Minister delivered, I think, on Scottish television in September, 1969, when he said "What do you want—a means test society in a means test economy?". Yet now we have means test after means test with every piece of legislation they bring in, and the Government glory in it.
Amendment No. 95—incidentally, my name heads the list against the others as well as this—is a sort of last ditch attempt at the last minute to give power to the Secretary of State, on his own initiative or at the request of a local authority with particular problems, to vary the provisions of the Clause.
The words are impeccable. I think that there has been a transposition of one or two words, but anyone interested can find them on page 56 of the Bill. It is a power which the Government use when they take over responsibilities in respect of certain local authorities in default.

The Secretary of State would be wise to have this power. He cannot foresee the timetable for the Bill. He cannot even foresee the difficulties he will run into. He would be far better advised to take this power to set aside or modify all the increases in the first two years. I am not a great one for giving powers to a Secretary of State of this sort, but I am prepared to entrust such a power to him so that he may, either on his own initiative or at the request of a local authority, do what is necessary.

What is wrong with that? If the Secretary of State were a wise man, he would accept it. It commits him to nothing. If, on the other hand, he does not accept it—I gather from the Under-Secretary of State that he will not—it means that, come what may, he will steamroller these rent increases through on people who rejected him and his policies at the General Election and who rejected his party at the municipal elections.

I think that we should now vote on Amendment No. 92, and then vote also on No. 95, if the Government have not changed their mind.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 259

Division No. 203.]
AYES
[10.5 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Carmichael, Neil
Eadie, Alex


Albu, Austen
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Ellis, Tom


Armstrong, Ernest
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
English, Michael


Ashley, Jack
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Evans, Fred


Ashton, Joe
Cohen, Stanley
Ewing, Harry


Atkinson, Norman
Concannon, J. D.
Faulds, Andrew


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Conlan, Bernard
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Barnes, Michael
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Foot, Michael


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Ford Ben


Baxter, William
Crawshaw, Richard
Forrester, John


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Cronin, John
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Freeson, Reginald


Bidwell, Sydney
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Galpern, Sir Myer


Bishop, E. S.
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Garrett, W. E.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Gilbert. Dr. John


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dalyell, Tam
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)


Booth, Albert
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Gourlay, Harry


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Bradley, Tom
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Deakins, Eric
Griffiths. Will (Exchange)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hamling, William


Buchan, Norman
Dempsey, James
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhll)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Doig, Peter
Hardy, Peter


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dormand, J. D.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefleld)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hattersley, Roy


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Driberg, Tom
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Cant, R. B.
Dunn, James A.
Heffer. Eric S.




Horam, John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Rowlands, Ted


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mayhew, Christopher
Sandelson, Neville


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Meacher, Michael
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Huckfield, Leslie
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mendelson, John
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mikardo, Ian
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Millan, Bruce
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Hunter, Adam
Milne, Edward
Sillars, James


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Silverman, Julius


Janner, Greville
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Skinner, Dennis


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


John, Brynmor
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Spearing, Nigel


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Spriggs, Leslie


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Moyle, Roland
Steel, David


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Murray, Ronald King
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Oakes, Gordon
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Ogden, Eric
Strang, Gavin


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Kaufman, Gerald
O'Malley, Brian
Swain, Thomas


Kelley, Richard
Oram, Bert
Taverne, Dick


Kinnock, Neil
Orbach, Maurice
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Lambie, David
Oswald, Thomas
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lamborn, Harry
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Lamond, James
Padley, Walter
Tinn, James


Latham, Arthur
Paget, R. T.
Torney, Tom


Lawson, George
Palmer, Arthur
Urwin, T. W.


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Varley, Eric G.


Leonard, Dick
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Wainwright, Edwin


Lestor, Miss Joan
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Pavitt, Laurie
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Pendry, Tom
Wallace, George


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pentland, Norman
Watkins, David


Lipton, Marcus
Perry, Ernest G.
Weitzman, David


Lomas, Kenneth
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Wellbeloved, James


Loughlin, Charles
Prescott, John
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Price, William (Rugby)
Whitehead, Phillip


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Probert, Arthur
Whitlock, William


McBride, Neil
Rankin, John
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


McCartney, Hugh
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


McElhone, Frank
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


McGuire, Michael
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Mackenzie, Gregor
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Woof, Robert


Mackintosh, John P.
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)



Maclennan, Robert
Robertson, John (Paisley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Roper, John
Mr. James Hamilton.


Marks, Kenneth
Rose, Paul B.



Marsden, F.
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)



Marshall, Dr. Edmund




NOES


Adley, Robert
Buck, Antony
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Burden, F. A.
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Emery, Peter


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Carlisle, Mark
Eyre, Reginald


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Chapman, Sydney
Farr, John


Astor, John
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fell, Anthony


Atkins, Humphrey
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Awdry, Daniel
Churchill, W. S.
Fidler, Michael


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Batsford, Brian
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Clegg, Walter
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bell, Ronald
Cockeram, Eric
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Cooke, Robert
Fortescue, Tim


Benyon, W.
Coombs, Derek
Fowler, Norman


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Fry, Peter


Biffen, John
Cormack, Patrick
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Biggs-Davison, John
Costain, A. P.
Gardner, Edward


Blaker, Peter
Crouch, David
Gibson-Watt, David


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Crowder, F. P.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Body, Richard
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Boscawen, Robert
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Bowden, Andrew
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj.-Gen.James
Goodhart, Philip


Bray, Ronald
Dean, Paul
Goodhew, Victor


Brewis, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Gorst, John


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Dixon, Piers
Gower, Raymond


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Drayson, G. B.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Green, Alan


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Dykes, Hugh
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Eden, Sir John
Grylls, Michael


Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gummer, J. Selwyn







Gurden, Harold
Maddan, Martin
Sharples, Richard


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Madel, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'rb'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marten, Neil
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mather, Carol
Simeons, Charles


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maude, Angus
Sinclair, Sir George


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mawby, Ray
Skeet, T. H. H.


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Haselhurst, Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Soref, Harold


Havers, Michael
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Speed, Keith


Hawkins, Paul
Miscampbell, Norman
Spence, John


Hayhoe, Barney
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Sproat, Iain


Heath, Rt. Hn Edward
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stainton, Keith


Hicks, Robert
Moate, Roger
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hiley, Joseph
Molyneaux, James
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Money, Ernie
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Holland, Philip
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Holt, Miss Mary
Monro, Hector
Stokes, John


Hordern, Peter
Montgomery, Fergus
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hornby, Richard
More, Jasper
Sutcliffe, John


Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Morrison, Charles
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Hunt, John
Mudd, David
Tebbit, Norman


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Murton, Oscar
Temple, John M.


Iremonger, T. L.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Neave, Airey
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


James, David
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon. S.)


Jessel, Toby
Normanton, Tom
Tilney, John


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Onslow, Cranley
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Jopling, Michael
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Trew, Peter


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Parkinson, Cecil
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kershaw, Anthony
Percival, Ian
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Kilfedder, James
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Waddington, David


Kimball, Marcus
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Pink, R. Bonner
Ward, Dame Irene


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Warren, Kenneth


Kinsey, J. R.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Weatherill, Bernard


Kitson, Timothy
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Knox, David
Proudfoot, Wilfred
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Lambton, Lord
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Wiggin, Jerry


Lamont, Norman
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wilkinson, John


Lane, David
Raison, Timothy
Winterton. Nicholas


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Redmond, Robert
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Le Marchant, Spencer
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Woodnutt, Mark


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Worsley, Marcus


Loveridge, John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Luce, R. N.
Ridsdale, Julian
Younger, Hn. George


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)



MacArthur, Ian
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McCrindle, R. A.
Rost, Peter
Mr. Hamish Gray and


McLaren, Martin
Russell, Sir Ronald
Mr. Marcus Fox.


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
St. John-Stevas, Norman



McNair-Wilson, Michael
Scott, Nicholas



McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 95, in page 26, line 44, at end insert:
(1A) The Secretary of State may at the request of a local authority or on his own initiative in respect of any or all local authorities empower them by order to treat the provisions of subsection (1) of this section—

(a) as having effect with such modifications, exceptions and adaptations as may be specified in the order;

(b) as not having effect.—[Mr. Ross.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 262.

Division No. 204.]
AYES
[10.12.p.m.


Abse, Leo
Bagier, Gordon A.T 
Blenkinsop, Arthur


Albu, Austen
Barnes, Michael
Boardman, H. (Leigh)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Booth, Albert


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Baxter, William 
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur


Armstrong, Ernest
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Bradley, Tom


Ashley, Jack
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Broughton, Sir Alfred


Ashton, Joe
Bidwell, Sydney
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)


Atkinson, Norman
Bishop, E.S
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)




Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Palmer, Arthur


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn
Hunter, Adam
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Janner, Greville
Pavitt, Laurie


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pendry, Tom


Cant, R. B.
John, Brynmor
Pentland, Norman


Carmichael, Neil
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Prescott, John


Castle, Rt. Hon. Barbara
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Probert, Arthur


Cohen, Stanley
Kaufman, Gerald
Rankin, John


Concannon, J. D.
Kelley, Richard
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Conlan, Bernard
Kinnock, Neil
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lambie, David
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Lamborn, Harry
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Crawshaw, Richard
Lamond, James
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Cronin, John
Latham, Arthur
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Lawson, George
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roper, John


Dalyell, Tam
Leonard, Dick
Rose, Paul B.


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Rowlands, Ted


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Sandelson, Neville


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Deskins, Eric
Lipton, Marcus
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lomas, Kenneth
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Loughlin, Charles
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Dempsey, James
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Doig, Peter
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Dormand, J. D.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sillars, James


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McBride, Neil
Silverman, Julius


Driberg, Tom
McCartney, Hugh
Skinner, Dennis


Dunn, James A.
McElhone, Frank
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Eadie, Alex
McGuire, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Spriggs, Leslie


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackintosh, John P.
Steel, David


Ellis, Tom
Maclennan, Robert
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


English, Michael
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Evans, Fred
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Strang, Gavin


Ewing, Harry
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Faulds, Andrew
Marks, Kenneth
Swain, Thomas


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marsden, F.
Taverne, Dick


Foot, Michael
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Ford, Ben
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Forrester, John
Mayhew, Christopher
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Meacher, Michael
Tinn, James


Freeson, Reginald
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Torney, Tom


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mendelson, John
Urwin, T. W.


Garrett, W. E.
Mikardo, Ian
Varley, Eric G.


Gilbert, Dr. John
Millan, Bruce
Wainwright, Edwin


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Gourlay, Harry
Milne, Edward
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Wallace, George


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Watkins, David


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshaw)
Weitzman, David


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wellbeloved, James


Hamilton, William (Fife. W.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hamling, William
Moyle, Roland
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Murray, Ronald King
Whitehead, Phillip


Hardy, Peter
Oakes, Gordon
Whitlock, William


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hattersley, Roy
O'Halloran. Michael
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
O'Malley, Brian
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Heffer, Eric S.
Oram, Bert
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Horam, John
Orbach, Maurice
Woof, Robert


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oswald, Thomas



Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Huckfield, Leslie
Padley, Walter
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Paget, R. T.
Mr. James Hamilton.


Hughes, Mark (Durham)




NOES


Adley, Robert
Batsford, Brian
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)


Alison. Michael (Barkston Ash)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Body, Richard


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bell, Ronald
Boscawen, Hn. Robert


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Bowden, Andrew


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Benyon, W.
Bray, Ronald


Astor, John
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Brawis, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Biffen, John
Brinton, Sir Tatton


Awdry, Daniel
Biggs-Davison, John
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Blaker, Peter
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)







Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Holt, Miss Mary
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hordern, Peter
Pink, R. Bonner


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hornby, Richard
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Buck, Antony
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Burden, F. A.
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Carlisle, Mark
Hunt, John
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Chapman, Sydney
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Iremonger, T. L.
Raison, Timothy


Chichester-Clark, R.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Churchill, W. S.
James, David
Redmond, Robert


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jessel, Toby
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Clegg, Walter
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cockeram, Eric
Jopling, Michael
Ridsdale, Julian


Cooke, Robert
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Coombs, Derek
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Cooper, A. E.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rost, Peter


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Kershaw, Anthony
Russell, Sir Ronald


Cormack, Patrick
Kilfedder, James
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Costain, A. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Scott, Nicholas


Crouch, David
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Sharples, Richard


Crowder, F. P.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Kinsey, J. R.
Shelton, William (Clapham)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kitson, Timothy
Simeons, Charles


d'Avigdor-Goldsmld,Maj.-Gen.James
Knox, David
Sinclair, Sir George


Dean, Paul
Lambton, Lord
Skeet, T. H. H.


Deedes, Rl. Hn. W. F.
Lamont, Norman
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington) 


Dixon, Piers
Lane, David
Soref, Harold


Drayson, G. B.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Speed, Keith


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Spence, John


Dykes, Hugh
Le Merchant, Spencer
Sproat, Iain


Eden, Sir John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stainton, Keith


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Stanbrook, Ivor


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Loveridge, John
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Luce, R. N.
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Emery, Peter
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Eyre, Reginald
MacArthur, Ian
Stokes, John


Farr, John
McCrindle, R. A.
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Fell, Anthony
McLaren, Martin
Sutcliffe, John


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Tapsell, Peter


Fidler, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Taylor,Edward M. (G'gow.Cathcart)


Finsberg. Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Maddan, Martin
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Madel, David
Tebbit, Norman


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marten, Neil
Temple, John M.


Fortescue, Tim
Mather, Carol
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Fowler, Norman
Maude, Angus
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Fraser.Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mawby, Ray
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Fry, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tilney, John


Gardner, Edward
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Gibson-Watt, David
Miscampbell, Norman
Trew, Peter


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Moate, Roger
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Goodhart, Philip
Molyneaux, James
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Goodhew, Victor
Money, Ernie
Waddington, David


Gorst, John
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Gower, Raymond
Monro, Hector
Ward, Dame Irene


Green, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus
Warren, Kenneth


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
More, Jasper
Weatherill, Bernard


Grylls, Michael
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gummer, J Selwyn
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Gurden, Harold
Morrison, Charles
Wiggin, Jerry


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mudd, David
Wilkinson, John


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Murton, Oscar
Winterton, Nicholas


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neave, Airey
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Woodnutt, Mark


Haselhurst, Alan
Normanton, Tom
Worsley, Marcus


Havers, Michael
Onslow, Cranley
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Hawkins, Paul
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Younger, Hn. George


Hayhoe, Barney
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)



Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hicks, Robert
Parkinson, Cecil
Mr. Hamish Gray and


Hiley, Joseph
Percival, Ian
Mr. Marcus Fox.


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John



Holland, Philip

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — Clause 30

Orders of the Day — INCREASES IN RENT OF INDIVIDUAL HOUSES OF HOUSING AUTHORITIES

Mr. Younger: I beg to move Amendment No. 99, in page 27, line 32, at end insert:
'except that in subsection (1) the words from "plus" to the end shall be omitted'.
This is a drafting Amendment and is consequential on the Amendment to Clause 30(1) made in Committee. Hon. Members will remember that Amendment No. 201 in Committee was necessary to prevent a conflict between the effects of Clause 29 and Clause 30 as they relate to the increases made in the period to 1st October, 1972.

Mr. Ross: May I raise a simple point? Usually in drafting when it is said "the words from 'plus'" it means the words after "plus". I wonder whether this includes the word "plus" or whether that is to be left?

Mr. Younger: This is to be read in the normal way. The word "plus" is in inverted commas.

Mr. Ross: The word "plus" will remain?

Mr. Younger: indicated assent.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 31

Orders of the Day — INCREASE IN AVERAGE RENT OF DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND SCOTTISH SPECIAL HOUSING ASSOCIATION HOUSES.

Mr. Lambie: I beg to move Amendment No. 100, in page 27, line 39, at end add:
'and where the average standard annual rent charged on 15th May 1972 is greater than the average standard annual rent for Scotland, no increase shall be applied'.
The main aim of this Amendment is to allow the Scottish Special Housing Association and the new town corporations in Scotland to keep their rents at present levels until the rents of the other housing associations reach those levels. Earlier the Under-Secretary said that we

should take the trouble to read the Bill and then we would understand it. I met the Secretary of State with a deputation of Members representing the new towns and I know from that meeting that he has not read the Bill and does not understand it. He told us that the main aim of the Bill was to be fair to all Scottish tenants. He said that the main aim, before there was a review in 1975–6, was to even out the inequalities in rent levels in Scotland.
Those of us who have read the Bill and understand it know that in 1975–76 there will still be a large number of inequalities in rent levels in Scotland and we shall still be able to publish a league table of rents. Unfortunately, the housing authorities that will be at the top of the league table in 1975–76 will be those in the new town corporations and the SSHA. This Amendment seeks to do what the Secretary of State says is the main aim of the Bill, to be fair to Scottish tenants. I ask him on behalf of the tenants of the SSHA and the corporations to accept this Amendment.
Since half-past three today we have been discussing a series of Amendments. My righthon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said that we had been dealing with 100 Government Amendments alone. The Government have not accepted any of our Amendments, but I hope they will accept this one because it is in line with their policy to be fair to all tenants. Tenants of the SSHA and the corporations wonder what the Government have got against them when they are dealing in such a way with the residual subsidy, the so-called "welshing" subsidy, and when they are cutting out all existing subsidies by a fixed ratio of £9 per house for this year and for every subsequent year by £10 a house.
10.30 p.m.
The tenants of the new towns and of the SSHA are asking why the Government are picking on them. This is because the Government are to withdraw the residual subsidy to them at double the rate—£18 per house this year and £20 per house every subsequent year. At present, the rents charged by these housing corporations are higher than any charged elsewhere in Scotland. Instead of the Government playing fair, they seem to delight in being vicious. They are


attacking all council tenants but reserving their greatest attack for tenants of the SSHA and the new town corporations.
My argument can easily be appreciated if we look at average annual standard rents for each category of housing. In 1971, the average annual standard rent for all local authority houses was £79·29. The average of the SSHA was £105·5, or 30 per cent. above the average. In the new town corporations—Irvine, Livingston, Glenrothes, East Kilbride and Cumbernauld—the average was £139·96, or 75 per cent, above the average.
In my own area, in Irvine, the average was over £180, or 135 per cent. above the average. The rents charged by the new town corporation in Irvine are nearly two and a half times those charged on average by every other local authority in Scotland. By these figures, even Tories should realise there is something unjust in the provisions of the Bill and be prepared to listen to the advice of the tenants of the new towns and of those areas where we have large numbers of SSHA houses.
The Government's case is that in 1975–76, once the full implications of the Bill have been felt throughout Scotland, all these inequalities will have been evened out. That was the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman to the deputation. We were told "Do not worry, Mr. Lambie. You are being hard hit at the moment but later on, when all the other areas have had their rent increases, the rents throughout Scotland will be equal". That is what the right hon. Gentleman honestly believes because he does not understand the Bill.
The true position is that in 1975–76, in Irvine new town, the average annual standard rent will be increased to £294. The neighbouring small burgh of Kil-winning is cheek by jowl with Pennyburn, Irvine. When Kilwinning has fulfilled all the requirements of the Bill, the average annual standard rent there will be only £130 a year, which is £58 less than that presently charged by the Irvine Corporation for its houses in Pennyburn. These figures are reflected in other small burghs and new towns throughout Scotland.
In the equivalent Measure applying to England and Wales the Government have allowed local authorities in special cir-

cumstances to vary rent levels and increases. For example, under Section 68 of the English Act they must assess fair rents for all dwellings and reduce rents which are above the fair rent. Under Sections 64 and 65 a local authority may, if it considers that the present rent is at or near the fair rent level, make little or no increase.
We want justice for new town tenants in Scotland, particularly when our rents are already affair rent levels in relation to comparable buildings in the area. In other words, new town and certain special housing association rents are now at fair rent levels.
We are not asking for rents to be reduced. We are simply suggesting that new town corporations and special housing associations be allowed to have a rents standstill, holding rents at their present levels at least until the rents of other areas come up to those levels. There is nothing to prevent the Government accepting this proposal and at the same time retaining the fundamental basis of the Bill.
I represent an urban new town in which the rents are some of the highest in Scotland and are comparable with the highest rents in local authorities generally in England and Wales. The tenants' association has recommended that its members withhold the increase, which shows that we are likely to have a conflict between new town tenants, development corporations and the Government. This will be an unnecessary conflict if the Government mean what they say about the Bill being fair to all tenants.

Mr. Eadie: The powerful case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) was included in the submissions which we made to the Secretary of State at a private interview which he was kind enough to grant some of my hon. Friends, no doubt at great inconvenience to himself. We are anxious to impress on the right hon. Gentleman the importance of giving consideration to the tenants of new towns. The Government's handling of the Bill from the point of view of these tenants has been, to say the least, ham-fisted.
However democratic local authorities may be in their activities, how democratic are new town corporations in Scotland? I ask that question because in the decision


which they took there was no consultation with their tenants. It was dictatorship because the new town corporations in Scotland—we are entitled to know whether they took their decision at the behest of the Secretary of State—met and decided, without consulting the new town tenants, to impose rent increases in May rather than in October.
We are talking about the new towns in relation to the Amendment. The new town corporations treated the people living in them very shoddily. They treated their Members of Parliament just as shoddily. The Secretary of State will know that I received an invitation, with a month's notice, from the new town corporation of Livingston. The corporation wanted to discuss with me the question of increasing rents. But the corporation changed its mind. Two days before the scheduled meeting I was asked to meet the corporation to discuss the rent levels, but I had arranged a meeting for that night with tenants of the new town, and I wished to meet them. So there was no question of consultation. The corporation ham-fistedly informed the tenants that the rents would be increased regardless.
When considering rent levels and the way the matter will be treated under the Bill, one cannot but be puzzled when one finds that in new towns one gets resistance which one is not getting with local authorities. I do not know whether it is Government policy to try to encourage resistance and discontent among people. If the Government have not tried to do that, it is marvellous what they have done by not trying. In the whole approach to rent levels there is gross unfairness between local authority tenants. They cannot understand, for example, that although the tenants of new towns are paying a higher rent level, they will require to pay 25 per cent. of the rent allowances which will be given to people living in private property. They cannot understand why they should have to pay that in addition to having higher rent levels than obtain elsewhere.
I do not know whether the Secretary of State was present earlier but he may know that his hon. Friend the Under-secretary gave a specific promise that he would circularise tenants of local

authorities in relation to the non-dependant Clauses. I wonder whether the new town tenants and SSHA tenants will get the same circular and whether the corporations, which seem to be a law unto themselves, with no democratic content, will get the same circular from the Secretary of State or will be allowed to do what they like in relation to the tenants of new towns.
This is a very important Amendment because it indicates the Government's general approach to new town rent levels. We have had agreement between the two parties that the new towns are to be economic growth points and that this is the way to deal with Scotland's economic problems. But it is a poor way to go about it if we invite people to an economic growth point and ask them to pay rents far in excess of those of neighbouring local authorities.
The Amendment is reasonable. Since we all met the Secretary of State, as representatives of new towns, he has had ample opportunity to consider this matter. Logically there is a case for doing precisely what the Amendments suggests. I hope that the Secretary of State will support the Amendment.

Dr. M. S. Miller: The Amendment is very reasonable. Surely it cannot fail to be impressed on the Secretary of State that the situation for which my hon. Friend is asking will apply in England and Wales. I do not see why a situation which applies in one part of the United Kingdom should not apply to Scotland as well. My hon. Friend has pointed out the anomalous position with regard to Scottish new towns.
10.45 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) has said something which reminds me of what happened when, during the 1950s, I served on the planning committee of Glasgow City Council, later becoming the chairman of that committee. From 1954 to 1958 I had frequent meetings with the father of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), who was then Minister of State, Scottish Office, and the then Chairman of the East Kilbride Development Corporation. It was obvious from the many discussions we had that the democratic set-up left much to be desired, to put it mildly.
I am not in favour of high rents. I am surprised that my hon. Friend even concedes that there should be an element of agreeing to the kind of high rents which are being imposed. The level at which rents are being imposed upon the people of Scotland is disgraceful.
If rents must be increased, why must they be increased for people who are already paying such extravagantly high rents? I am amazed at the level of rents in the Scottish new towns. Some hon. Members opposite seem to think that all workers earn relatively large sums of money. Many of those living and working in the Scottish new towns are not earning large sums. I wonder that some of them can pay the high level of rents that already applies in the new towns. I do not see why the Secretary of State should be stubborn about accepting an Amendment which would make the position in Scotland comparable with that in England and Wales.
The new towns being developed in Scotland have one main purpose, which transcends all other purposes. It is to ensure that the cancerous slums of our industrial cities are demolished and way is made for people to move to decent housing conditions. How is it possible to attract people from slum areas so that slums can be demolished and the people moved to decent housing conditions when the Government impose upon the people rents which many of them will not be able to afford?
I plead with the Secretary of State even at this stage to accept the Amendment, which unfortunately does not detract from his Bill. Would that the Amendment did something drastic to affect the Bill. It would at least make the position clear in relation to those in the new towns. If the Secretary of State is genuine and is not merely mouthing platitudes, if he wishes the people of Scotland to be decently housed, he should abandon the idea that it is only a matter of rents. It is houses we want built. I have told him that the Government's proposals do not build one extra house. He has not proved that they have built an extra house. If he is sincere in the view he has expressed so often—that he wishes to rehouse the people living in slums in Scotland's industrial cities—he should accept the Amendment.

Mr. Ewing: I speak as a tenant of the Scottish Special Housing Association and as one who for the last 18 years has suffered from the inequality inflicted by the rent structure of the association. I am greatly concerned that built into the Bill is a clear provision for preserving the differential between local authority rents and association rents and local authority rents and new town development corporation rents. Our arguments in Committee, particularly on new town rents, were answered by the Under-Secretary in saying that people should be prepared to pay for being part of a new town. I do not accept that.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) in asking how a place like Glasgow can expect to spill from its population about 60,000 families into new towns. There will be no overspill agreements reached between local authorities and Glasgow Corporation because of the Bill, and yet it will be the purpose of new towns in future to take overspill families from places like Glasgow. It will be impossible for places like Glasgow to spill out 60,000 or 70,000 families into new towns and ask them to accept astronomical rents.
My view of the SSHA has always been and still is—I do not see it changing—that it should be only a building authority. Half the problem could be solved quite easily by transferring the stock of association houses in local authorities to the local authorities concerned. In the local authority areas which I represent, if a person wants an association house he can have one within days. Association houses are empty in my constituency for week after week, not because they are two-apartment, three-apartment or four-apartment houses but because they are association houses and the rents are much higher than local authority houses, and they always will be as a result of the Bill.
I wish to raise a point about the new town of Glenrothes. Myhon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) is not present and I would be the last to presume to speak on his behalf, but I want to make the relevant point that it is astonishing that in 1972 Glenrothes new town development corporation is advertising houses not for letting or even for sale, but for occupation as holiday homes because it cannot get them occupied in any other way. It is true


that there is no industry in the area for people to go to and there is a large amount of unemployment, but the other side of the story is that the rents are so high that they frighten away prospective tenants.
I support the Amendment and hope that the Government will accept it.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The effect of Clause 31, limiting rent increases made by new towns and the Scottish Special Housing Association, is to place the tenants of development corporations and the Association on the same footing as the tenants of local authorities as regards maximum rent increases. The average standard rent of Association houses is about 25 per cent. above the present average standard rent of local authority housing, but the Association will be required to balance its account in the same way as local authorities, and after the first two or three years of operation of the new system of housing finance it is expected that this gap will be very largely closed.
To compare new town housing with local authority housing is not comparing like with like, since the new town houses are in general much newer and situated in up-to-date environments of high amenity. Moreover the stock of houses in new towns includes a significant proportion—about 8 per cent.—of managerial-type houses.
Another reason for the present higher rents is that all new town tenants in Scotland have had the protection of a comprehensive rebate scheme and this protection will be improved with the model rent rebate scheme provided for in the Bill. As an example of this nearly all Irvine Development Corporation tenants receiving a family income of £30 a week or less and having at least one child of school age will pay less rent in 1972–73 than in the previous year.

Mr. Hugh McCartney: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Campbell: I will if I have time.

Mr. McCartney: Will the Secretary of State agree—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Malla-lieu): The right hon. Gentleman is not

giving way, so the hon. Member must sit down.

Mr. Campbell: I must say this if I can. It is misleading to use the argument that because the average rent charged by new towns is higher than that charged by local authorities, the new town tenants are necessarily worse off. The simple reason for this difference is that the average stock of houses in new towns consists of new, good amenity houses. The rents charged by many local authorities for their new houses are very similar to the average rents charged in new towns. A more correct comparison is with the rent charged for new local authority houses. For example, in Edinburgh it is around £200 per annum and in Greenock about £160 to £180. The argument advanced by the Opposition did not challenge the validity of that comparison.

Mr. Ross: rose—

Mr. Campbell: It would be unfair to tenants of new local authority housing if the tenants of new town houses were to enjoy a standstill period as the Amendment would provide while similar local authority rents were being increased under the Bill over the next few years. The Bill has been drafted to give broadly comparable treatment for all public sector tenants but an assurance can be given that as local authority rents increase the position of the new town rents will be kept under review with those of the local authorities.

Mr. McCartney: Will the Secretary of State agree that what he is saying now is contrary to what he said to the deputation led by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) when we met to discuss new town corporation and housing authority rents? When the question was posed, the right hon. Gentleman said that the policy in the Bill was to equalise rents and to eliminate the deficits in the housing revenue accounts. This would result in a situation in which new corporation rents would be far in excess of the local authority rents unless the Secretary of State continued to increase the rents of other local authorities. This was his statement to the deputation.

Mr. Campbell: I am saying now what I said to the deputation. As regards the


SSHA the gap should largely close in two or three years' time. With new town corporations one must compare like with like. One must compare modern, new, high-quality houses in the new towns with similar houses held by local authorities.

Mr. Ross: I want to pose one pertinent question. The new town of Irvine is the one new town in Scotland based on two existing towns—Kilwinning and Irvine. Both the existing towns have built very good new houses. Will the Secretary of State compare the rents of those houses in the burghs which are to be absorbed within the new town with the new town corporation houses? This is where the difficulty will arise.

Mr. Campbell: I have done that. I have looked at some of the differences in Kilwinning and Irvine. The local authorities can pool the rents among their tenants. If, for instance, they should be charging £200 a house they can, if they wish, charge less to one and more to some other tenant. The effect of the Bill will be that local authorities will have to balance their housing accounts

but to do that they may raise rents only within certain limits each year.

The SSHA is on the same basis. The new town corporations start at a higher level of average rents because, on average, there is much higher quality housing in the new towns. They also will be limited in the average yearly increase, so that the gap will continue for a time, with the new town average being higher than the normal local authority average in Scotland. But new town corporation rents, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, are determined in consultation with the Secretary of State, and this consultation will continue. In the years to come, as local authorities reach their—

It being Eleven o'clock MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and the Orders [11th April and this day], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 244 Noes 271.

Division No. 205.]
AYES
[11.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)


Albu, Austen
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Gourlay, Harry


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Crawshaw, Richard
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Cronin, John
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Ashley, Jack
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Ashton, Joe
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Atkinson, Norman
Dalyell, Tarn
Hamling, William


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Barnes, Michael
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hardy, Peter


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Harper, Joseph


Baxter, William
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Deakins, Eric
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Bennett, James(Glasgow,Bridgeton)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hattersley, Roy


Bidwell, Sydney
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Bishop, E. S.
Dempsey, James
Heffer, Eric S.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Doig, Peter
Horam, John


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dormand, J. D.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Booth, Albert
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Driberg, Tom
Huckfield, Leslie


Bradley, Tom
Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Ellis, Tom
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
English, Michael
Hunter, Adam


Buchan, Norman
Evans, Fred
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Ewing, Harry
Janner, Greville


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Faulds, Andrew
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Cant, R. B.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Carmichael, Neil
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
John, Brynmor


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Foot, Michael
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Ford, Ben
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Forrester, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Freeson, Reginald
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Cohen, Stanley
Galpern, Sir Myer
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Concannon, J. D.
Garrett, W. E.
Kaufman. Gerald


Conlan, Bernard
Gilbert, Dr. John
Kelley, Richard




Kinnock, Neil
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Silkln. Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Lambie, David
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Lamborn, Harry
Moyie, Roland
Sillars, James


Lamond, James
Murray, Ronald King
Silverman, Julius


Latham, Arthur
Oakes, Gordon
Skinner, Dennis


Lawson, George
Ogden, Eric
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
O'Halloran, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Leonard, Dick
O'Malley, Brian
Spriggs, Leslie


Lestor, Miss Joan
Oram, Bert
Steel, David


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Orbach, Maurice
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Oswald, Thomas
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Strang, Gavin


Liplon, Marcus
Padley, Walter
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Lomas, Kenneth
Paget, R. T.
Swain, Thomas


Loughlin, Charles
Palmer, Arthur
Taverne, Dick


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


McBride, Neil
Pavitt, Laurie
Tinn, James


McCartney, Hugh
Pendry, Tom
Torney, Tom


McElhone, Frank
Pentland, Norman
Urwin, T. W.


McGuire, Michael
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Valley, Eric G.


Mackenzie, Gregor
Prescott, John
Wainwright, Edwin


Mackie, John
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham All Saints)


Mackintosh, John P.
Price, William (Rugby)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Maciennan, Robert
Probert, Arthur
Wallace, George


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow. C.)
Rankin, John
Watkins, David


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Weitzman, David


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Wellbeloved, James


Marks, Kenneth
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Marsden, F.
Richard, Ivor
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Whitehead, Phillip


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Whitlock, William


Mayhew, Christopher
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Meacher, Michael
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Roper, John
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mendelson, John
Rose, Paul B.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Mikardo, Ian
Ross. Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Millan, Bruce
Rowlands, Ted
Woof, Robert


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Sandelson, Neville



Milne, Edward
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Mr. Ernest G Perry.


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)



NOES


Adley, Robert
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fidler, Michael


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Chapman, Sydney
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Churchill, W. S.
Fookes, Miss Janet


Astor, John
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fortescue, Tim


Atkins, Humphrey
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fowler, Norman


Awdry, Daniel
Clegg, Walter
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hush(St'fford &amp; Stone)


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Cockeram, Eric
Fry, Peter


Batsford, Brian
Cooke, Robert
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Coombs, Derek
Gardner, Edward


Bell, Ronald
Cooper, A. E.
Gibson-Watt, David


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Cordle, John
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Benyon, W.
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Cormack, Patrick
Godber, Rt. Kn. J. B.


Biffen, John
Costain, A. P.
Goodhart, Philip


Biggs-Davison, John
Crouch, David
Goodhew, Victor


Blaker, Peter
Crowder, F. P.
Gorst, John


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Davles, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Gower, Raymond


Body, Richard
d'Avidgdor-Goldsmdi, Sir Henry
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj. -Gen. James
Green, Alan


Bossom, Sir Clive
Dean, Paul
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Bowden, Andrew
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Grylls, Michael


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dixon, Piers
Gummer, J. Selwyn


Bray, Ronald
Drayson, G. B.
Gurden, Harold


Brewis, John
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Dykes, Hugh
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Eden, Sir John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Emery, Peter
Haselhurst, Alan


Buck, Antony
Eyre, Reginald
Havers, Michael


Burden, F. A.
Farr, John
Hawkins, Paul


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Fell, Anthony
Hayhoe, Barney


Carlisle, Mark
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hicks. Robert







Higgins, Terence L.
Maxwell-Hyslop,R.J
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hiley, Joseph
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Simeons, Charles


Holland, Philip
Miscampbell, Norman
Sinclair, Sir George


Holt, Miss Mary
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hordern, Peter
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Hornby, Richard
Moate, Roger
Soref, Harold


Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Molyneaux, James
Speed, Keith


Howe, Kn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Money, Ernie
Spence, John


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Sproat, Iain


Hunt, John
Monro, Hector
Stainton, Keith


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Montgomery, Fergus
Stanbrook, Ivor


Iremonger, T. L.
More, Jasper
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


James, David
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Morrison, Charles
Stokes, John


Jessel, Toby
Mudd, David
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Murton, Oscar
Sutcliffe, John


Jopling, Michael
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Tapsell, Pater


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Neave, Airey
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Tebbit, Norman


Kershaw, Anthony
Normanton, Tom
Temple, John M


Kilfedder, James
Nott, John
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Kimball, Marcus
Onslow, Cranley
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Owen, Idris (Slockport, N.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Kinsey, J. R.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Tilney, John


Kirk, Peter
Parkinson, Cecil
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Kitson, Timothy
Percival, Ian
Trew, Peter


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Tugendhat, Christopher


Knox, David
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Turton, Rt. Hn Sir John


Lambton, Lord
Pink, R. Bonner
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lamont, Norman
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Vaughan. Dr. Gerard


Lane, David
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Waddington, David


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Ward, Dame Irene


Le Marchant, Spencer
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Warren, Kenneth


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Weatherill, Bernard


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Raison, Timothy
Weils, John (Maidstone)


Loveridge, John
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Luce, R. N.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Redmond, Robert
Wilkinson, John


MacArthur, Ian
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Winterton, Nicholas


McCrindle, R. A.
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


McLaren, Martin
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)
Ridsdale, Julian
Woodnutt, Mark


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Worsley, Marcus


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Maddan, Martin
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Younger, Hn. George


Madel, David
Rost, Peter



Marten, Neil
Russell, Sir Ronald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mather, Carol
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Mr. Hamish Gray and


Maude, Angus
Scott, Nicholas
Mr. Marcus Fox.


Mawby, Ray
Sharples, Richard

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to the said Orders, to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Eleven o'clock.

Amendment made: No. 101, in page 27, line 39, at end add—
(2) If high cast subsidy is payable to a development corporation or the Scottish Special Housing Association for any year, then the standard rents which they charge for that year shall not exceed an amount which, together with the high cost subsidy payable to them for that year, produces income which is equal to the development corporation rent income or, as the case may be, the Scottish

Special Housing Asociation rent income as respectively defined in section 10 of this Act.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 32

Orders of the Day — SERVICE CHARGES

Amendments made: No. 102, in page 28, line 5, leave out' with such local authority or'.

No. 103, in line 7, after 'concerned'. insert
'and with any local authority with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

Orders of the Day — GREY GABLES, THETFORD

11.13 p.m.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: I am grateful for the opportunity tonight, the first occasion during my time in the House that I have sought to raise a matter on the Adjournment, to draw attention to the consequences of the refusal of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to accept the recommendations of his inspector that consent should be given to the demolition and redevelopment of the house Grey Gables, The ford, following a public inquiry held on 12th May of last year. In my view such a decision has inflicted undeserved and unnecessary loss and hardship on my constituents, especially the owner.
This is a complicated case but it is extremely well set out and argued in the inspector's report dated 6th August 1971. Grey Gables is a large, rambling house, mainly the Victorian redevelopment of an earlier site but including some old flint work, and seventeenth century cottages in its back premises which now, front the inner relief road. It was purchased in 1940 by the present owner, Mr. Arthur Bagshaw, as a home and premises for his professional practiceas a dental surgeon. He has served the people of The ford for 37 years and now, living on the Norfolk coast, away from The ford, as a new constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler), wishes to retire completely, which he cannot do unless and until he can sell his main asset—Grey Gables.
Incidentally, although he purchased his practice before the war there is no longer any sale for his professional goodwill because of the way the dental services have developed under the National Health Service. So Grey Gables is simply a piece of property unoccupied since December, 1970. However, it is no ordinary house. Some time after 1947 it

became a Grade II listed building presumably for a mixture of architectural and historical interest—architectural mainly because of the old flint work, which is interesting but which has no unity to it, and historical because of associations with Thomas Paine, the author of "The Rights of Man," who was born in 1937 near Grey Gables. I say "near" advisedly, and refer to the plaque put on Grey Gables during the war by the American Air Force, several of whose members became Mr. Bagshaw's patients, because considerable controversy exists as to whether Thomas Paine was born in a cottage which was demolished to make way for the Victorian redevelopment or, on the evidence, less probably, in one of the oldest cottage elements in the house.
In 1966 Mr. Bagshaw started to try to sell the property as a residence, with or without the benefit of his dental practice. But such a rabbit warren of a house—and it is no less—and one so obviously expensive to maintain attracted no purchasers. However, in the summer of 1970 a local firm of solicitors in The ford urgently seeking new office accommodation, partly because their business was greatly expanding and also because they themselves were in premises which were scheduled for redevelopment, made a genuine offer to purchase provided they could get planning permission to redevelop the siteas professional office accommodation, of which there is a marked shortage in Thetford, for which the town expansion schemes are creating an additional demand.
Application for listed building consent was made first to the The ford Borough Council, which had delegated powers from the county, and then, after satisfying the The ford Borough Council, to the county planning authority of Norfolk. In both cases, after a most detailed examination and no little argument from objectors, because of the architectural interest and the connection with Thomas Paine, both authorities in turn recommended demolition and redevelopment as there was really no practicable alternative.
At that stage both I and my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins)—who in his professional capacity is a surveyor and estate agent and whose practice extends to Thetford—separately examined Grey Gables, and each independently thought


that it was a hopeless proposition to renovate and came to the conclusion that it was not really worth all the trouble and delay of a full-scale public inquiry. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State called the application in and the result of the public inquiry was to confirm all that had gone before. But instead of accepting these results the Minister, in his decision letter of 14th October, 1971, imposed a condition that all the old flint work part—that which was in the worst state of decay—should be preserved and incorporated in any new building, this apparently because of
the possibility that Thomas Paine was born in one of the cottages comprising the northern wing".
and of
the importance of the eastern and northern wings"—
containing the old flintwork—
to the street scene.
The Secretary of State did not feel justified in granting consent to the demolition of Grey Gables except for that part comprised in the southern wing—the Victorian part. That was precisely what the inquiry and all the previous examinations inquired into, and they found that the practical reasons for demolition were overwhelming. This decision in effect operated as a complete refusal since no one would rebuild subject to that restriction.
What is the present position? The applicant developers, the only firm purchasers for three years, have had to drop out and look elsewhere for new offices. Their principals have lost much time themselves; their staff have been occupied to no purpose; and they have incurred considerable out-of-pocket costs. Above all they have lost two years of time, with the consequent increases in building costs of new premises.
The Thetford Borough Council is left with a deteriorating building when the town might have had a properly designed office building, efficiently housing much-needed professional services, and of course paying rates. The council has firmly refused to purchase Grey Gables because it would not spend £30,000 of the ratepayers' money, which is the minimum amount required to restore the existing building, even though its layout has no useful purpose. There are

over 350 listed buildings in the town and the borough council has made grants and used its resources to look after some of these.
Thirdly, the status of the public in quiry has been greatly devalued by the decision. I quote a paragraph from the letter of the applicant solicitors:
Here we have a quasi judicial proceeding at which evidence is called and cross-examined and in due course the Inspector, who has seen the property or heard the witnesses, produces his Report and then the Minister—who as far as we know has never seen the property or heard the witnesses, but undoubtedly influenced by letters whose writers have never been properly cross-examined—rejects the Inspector's findings. One might just as well never have a Public Inquiry and as solicitors…this is something we must bear in mind in future both in planning appeals and in applications to demolish listed buildings.
Inevitably my right hon. Friend's own reputation and that of the Department have been considerably damaged locally. It is conceded that a Minister must have power to overrule his inspector's recommendations, but it is also thought that where the same conclusions and decisions have come up through three stages there must be some fairly dominant new factors to justify the Minister's refusal. It makes it much harder for the local planning authorities to do their job if they feel they are to be subject to be overruled even when their views have been vindicated by a public inquiry.
Most damaging of all is the loss inflicted upon the luckless owner applicant He cannot realise his main asset, invest the proceeds and complete his retirement. He loses income and is saddled with an open-ended liability. The Secretary of State recommended him to apply to the Historic Buildings Council for a grant. It, as was to be expected, turned Grey Gables down flat as being of insufficient architectural merit. Thus the owner has to meet all the expenses of the application, of the public inquiry and now of maintaining the building with diminished cash resources.
Where do we go from here? In my view, circumstances have changed. The rot that the applicants foresaw has set in. The conditions imposed by the Secretary of State have deferred any serious purchasers since the present condition of the house makes restoration even more uneconomic than it was a year ago. No Government grant is available. It is not


even possible to get a mortgage. Vandals have now attacked the house, as was predicted by the applicants at the public inquiry, and have smashed the windows and stolen lead from the roof and all the door furniture. The damage is estimated at £650.
There is no sign that any of those who might wish to preserve the building, notably the Thomas Paine Society, have any serious hope of raising the necessary funds or indeed, if miraculously the money suddenly became available, that attempted restoration of Grey Gables would be chosen as the most appropriate way of further honouring the memory of Thomas Paine.
There is in Thetford a fine gilt statue opposite the borough council offices presented by the Thomas Paine Society of America, and more recently a new public house attached to the town expansion estate has been aptly named the "Rights of Man".
I remind my hon. Friend the Under-secretary of the last sentence of the Secretary of State's letter to me of 13th December, 1971. In saying that he could not comment on something done in his quasi judicial capacity, he said:
I should add that if there were to be fresh evidence or a change of circumstances, it would always be open to the owner to make a new application, which would be considered on its merits in the light of factors prevailing at the time.
In view of that statement, Mr. Bagshaw was advised to submit a fresh application, which he did on 24th May—coincidentally the same day as I was lucky in the Ballot.
I have no reason to suppose that the local planning authorities will not adhere to their earlier very firm conviction that consent should be given. Again, I realise that the Minister cannot comment on what may become another quasi-judicial activity for him, but I ask all those concerned, whether as Ministers, councillors, civil servants, members of conservation, literary and historical societies or the general public, to bear in mind the loss and hardship that this long delay in fighting a physically lost cause has inflicted upon the innocent owner, who has served the people of The ford for a professional lifetime.
I hope, therefore, that the new application will be allowed to go through

unopposed and that this important site will be redeveloped for a building worthy of The ford and of the memory of Thomas Paine. This would relieve the borough council of a growing eyesore and enable Mr.Bagshaw to retire without constant further anxiety. Anything less would seem to me to be inconsistent with any reasonable view of the rights of man.

11.28 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): Having listened carefully to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill), I fully understand his concern for the position of his constituent Mr. Bagshaw in the circumstances which he has described. I have, however, to emphasise, as my hon. Friend understands, that once the Secretary of State has given his decision on a listed building consent application he has no further jurisdiction in the matter. Only the validity of the decision can be challenged by the making of an application to the High Court within six weeks of the issue of the decision, which period has now passed.
It is not therefore possible to argue the reasons for the Secretary of State's decision beyond those already given in the decision letter. These were given in paragraph 3 of the letter, from which I quote:
The Secretary of State accepts that the structural condition and state of repair of the building, particularly in the older parts, is generally poor and that the cost of repair and restoration would be very high in relation to the value of the property for residential or office use, and that although the property has been in the market for over four years the only firm offer has come from the firm of solicitors who now wish to demolish it and build offices for their own use. Nevertheless he sees the importance of Grey Gables's main architectural features which are the late 18th century facade fronting White hart Street which retains its original details and the northern wing fronting Inner Circle Relief Road which was originally a row of two or three cottages of the 17th or early 18th century. Moreover he notes that these eastern and northern sides of the property are in a prominent position fronting a road junction on the outskirts of the old central area of The ford and that they make a positive contribution to the street scene at this threshold to The ford. He accepts that the southern wing of Grey Gables, which is larger than either of the other two wings, was erected towards the end of the 19th century and appears to have no particular architectural or historic significance.


On the question of Thomas Paine's association with Grey Gables, the Secretary of State notes that the evidence given at the inquiry suggests that Thomas Paine was born in or near Grey Gables, but it was not such as to be conclusive that he was born in a cottage since demolished on the White hart Street frontage, or in one of the cottages now forming the northern wing of the house. There is, nevertheless, the possibility that Thomas Paine was born in one of the cottages comprising the northern wing, and in view of this and the importance of the eastern and northern wings to the street scene the Secretary of State did not feel that he would be justified in granting consent for the demolition of Grey Gables other than in relation to the part comprised in the southern wing.
It is however possible to draw attention to one or two points in the decision. One is that the decision was not given merely on the ground of Tom Paine's association with the site. Arguments about whether Paine was born in the surviving building or merely on the site are not relevant because the Secretary of State's decision was also based on the contribution which these buildings made to the townscape and the historic character of part of a historic town which is on the list of the Council for British Archaeology of historic towns. We must be especially careful before allowing demolition of listed buildings in such areas.
Second, the decision did not require the retention of the whole building but allowed demolition of the southern wing, more than half of the total area of the building. If the owner's object is redevelopment, there is scope for it here.
Referring to the qualifications in the solicitor's letter, it is perfectly proper for the Secretary of State, while accepting the inspector's facts, to put a rather different weight on some of them and to arrive at conclusions other than those of the inspector. Where the decision has not been delegated to the inspector, it is the Secretary of State's decision and he is obviously entitled to form a different view, even on the same facts.
As for the Government grant application, under the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act, 1953, Section 4 of the Act empowers the Secretary of State on the advice of the Historic Buildings Council, which was set up under Section 1, to make grants towards the cost of repairs to buildings of outstanding historic or architectural interest. The

Chairman is Lord Hailes and the 15 members include Lord Holford, Professor Sir Nikolaus Pevsner, Sir John Summerson and Mr. Howard Colvin the well-known architectural historian. Only the most important buildings qualify.
The council in its report for 1970–71 commented on this fact as follows:
We wish to reiterate the point made in our last Report, that refusal of a grant does not imply that we do not consider the building to be worth preserving. All it means is that the building is not of outstanding architectural or historic interest, that is, it is not of such importance in the national context that the taxpayer ought to contribute towards the cost of repair if the owner cannot meet the whole of it unaided. But all listed buildings whether outstanding or not, should by definition be preserved if possible. Applicants often plead that a grant ought to be given even if the building is not of outstanding interest, because its use or the user deserves sympathy and help. In such cases we have to harden our hearts since under the Act the only criterion for judging the eligibility of a building for grant is its outstanding historic and architectural interest either alone or as part of a group.
The funds available for the council's formidable task are in any case strictly limited.

Mr. Robert Cooke: My hon. Friend has mentioned the very point which concerned me. He said that the council could deal with a building if it was part of a group even if it was not particularly outstanding. The Minister has himself already said that this building is part of an important group. How does my hon. Friend reconcile these two points?

Mr. Eyre: It is a matter for the judgment of the council, which carefully considered the matter against this background. It decided that it was not of such outstanding interest as to merit a grant. I am sorry, but in the circumstances that was its decision.
As I was saying, the council's funds are strictly limited. They were £1 million in 1971–72 and this sum was increased in 1972–73 by £500,000 in view of the proposals for conservation grants.
There is, therefore, no inconsistency in the refusal of listed building consent for the demolition of all but the more recent addition to Grey Gables and the refusal of an Historic Buildings Council grant towards the cost of repairs. The council,


after considering all the evidence, considered that the connection of the building with Thomas Paine was too tenuous for it to make it outstanding on historic grounds, and from the architectural point of view it was of local, not national, importance.
Mr. Bagshaw claims that the decision to refuse consent to demolish all but the Victorian wing of Grey Gables has cost him the sale of his property and that he accordingly has an unsaleable property which he has nevertheless to preserve. He also reported in March that the house had been broken into and much interior damage had been done and a considerable amount of lead stripped from the roof. He claims he is suffering severe financial hardship and mental strain at a time when he had planned to retire.
It is necessary in these circumstances to examine the chances open to the owner. One possibility has already been mentioned: to sell the part of the site for which consent to demolish has been given, with a view to its redevelopment. Another possibility is to try to dispose of the house, or that part of it claimed to be associated with Thamas Paine, to some organisation representing those who urged the retention of the building either by appearing at the inquiry or by letter. If the building were offered, for instance, to the bodies which appeared at the inquiry or sent representatives, and time was given to them to raise the funds for purchase but this proved unsuccessful, this would be a factor that could be relevant to the future of the house.
Second, while the decision took account of the condition of the property, it is said it has deteriorated further since. Nothing should be said which could encourage owners to neglect listed buildings to justify demolition for redevelopment. But there will always be cases where an owner, with the best will in the world, cannot prevent deterioration, and this deterioration must impair the value of the property as a building of architectural or historic interest.
If there is a change of circumstances, the owner could make a fresh application for consent to demolish the building. This is something which the Secretary of State would have to consider in due course and it is not therefore possible to say what would justify such an applica-

tion; but obviously the condition of the building and the attempts made to dispose of it to possible purchasers, and also what had been done to try to realise the value of the part of which demolition is permitted, could all be relevant factors.
I an application were made—I note from what my hon. Friend said that such an application has been made—it would have to be considered by the local planning authority. If the authority was disposed to allow it, my right hon. Friend would have to be notified and would again have to decide whether to leave the decision to the local planning authority or not. It is obviously not possible, as my hon. Friend will understand, to comment at this stage.
It has been said that if an owner is refused consent to demolish a building he should be compensated. In fact, however, the law is based on the assumption that the building that has to be retained still has a reasonably beneficial use. It is, however, open to an owner to serve a listed building purchase notice on the local authority under Section 190 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, providing he can show that in its existing state it is incapable of reasonably beneficial use. The remedy by way of purchase notice is not intended for the case where an owner shows merely that he is unable to realise the full development value of his land.
It would then be for the local authority, if it wished, to transmit the notice to the Secretary of State who, if he is not satisfied that the building has become incapable of reasonably beneficial use in its existing state, can refuse to confirm the order. Otherwise he can either confirm the notice on one of the local authorities or grant listed building consent. Again, since these matters would come before the Secretary of State it is not possible to comment further at this stage.
To sum up, the decision in this case was one taken after full consideration of the circumstances as shown at the inquiry. It was, in effect, a compromise, allowing demolition of one part of the building and retention of the other. It cannot be altered unless there is a change of circumstances: but if the owner can show that there is such a change, there is more than one course open to him to adopt.
I hope that my hon. Friend and his constituent will carefully examine the words I have used and that some further step will now be considered by Mr. Bagshaw from which I hope a satisfactory outcome will result.

Mr. Cooke: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister may care to comment upon one other thing. The HBC has said "No" to a grant on this property, either on its own merits or on group value merits. But I believe that the local authority has power to make a grant under a consolidated Act of Parliament. It would be interesting to know whether it was ever asked to make a grant for repair, which I believe would be a grant or a loan. Perhaps that has a bearing on the case. If it was asked to make a grant but this was turned down, that is probably another argument for letting the local authority have its way. If the local authority has not been asked, that is a new factor.

Mr. Eyre: I have noted what my hon. Friend says. I cannot answer for the local

authority and one would have to await the outcome of its view. But what my hon. Friend has said may be helpful to Mr. Bagshaw, and my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South will no doubt have taken notice of it.

Mr. Hill: Is my hon. Friend aware that The ford Borough Council makes grants? The council has a great many listed buildings, but in this particular case it is not willing to find about £30,000 from the ratepayers for a building which it thinks of very minor interest.

Mr. Eyre: Clearly that illustrates again the difficulty of allocating resources to ends of this kind.
Returning to my main argument, I have tried to set out the courses available to Mr. Bagshaw and I hope that some satisfactory outcome will be found.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Twelve o'clock